THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 2445 of 2010 O r d e r: The petitioner states that he is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 178.13 Sq. yds., bearing Municipal No. 8-1-364/A/119, Daulat Gulshan Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 14.08.2002. He states that to protect the said property from trespass and encroachment, he started construction of compound wall around the property. While the construction work is in progress, the petitioner states two persons by name Sri Rasheed and Sri. Ahmed, started illegally interfering with the construction work and with the assistance of the authorities of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, got the construction work stalled. That he lodged a report against the said anti-social elements, but respondent No.2 refused to entertain the report on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, and advised him to approach civil Court. Thereafter, he states that he filed suit in O.S. No. 1304 of 2009 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction, restraining the afore-mentioned two persons and their henchmen from interfering with his peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 03.03.2009, the said Court, granted ad interim injunction in I.A. No. 164 o 2009, and the afore-said two persons, upon receipt of notice, entered their appearance and filed written statement. That he came to know through the defendants that respondent No.3 lodged a complaint dated 28.02.2009, signed by several persons, before the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, alleging illegal construction and erection of function hall gate by encroaching the road of the colony. That the afore-said two persons also prevailed upon respondent No.3 and got lodged a police complaint on 13.03.2009 against the owner of Majestic Garden Function Hall, which is registered as Crime No.107 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 506. The petitioner states that he is neither the owner of the Function Hall nor concerned with its affairs, much less its management, and that it belongs to his mother, who is in management thereof. However, respondent No. 2 at the instance of the defendants in the suit and respondent No. 3, is trying to falsely rope him in the said crime and arrest him, and that if they succeed in their efforts, it would amount to abuse of process of law, for he will be compelled to face full-fledged trial, even though he did not commit any offence. Hence, questioning the said action of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in trying to arrest him in connection with Crime No. 107 of 2009 on the file of Golkonda Police Station, Hyderabad, and consequently direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to investigate and ascertain as to whether the petitioner is owner of Majestic Garden Function Hall, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, and until then not to effect his arrest. This Court, by order dated 10.02.2010, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to effect the arrest of the petitioner. Respondent No.2, namely the Inspector of Police, Golkonda Police Station, Punjagutta, filed counter stating that respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint stating the owner of Majestic Garden Function Hall, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, started illegal construction at the Function Hall under the supervision of some goondas and threatening the locality people with dire consequences even though the municipal authorities have instructed the owner not to take up any further construction work. As the contents of the complaint, were non- cognizable in nature, they obtained permission from VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to register the complaint. Thereafter, a case in Crime No. 107 of 2009 for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C, was registered on 13.03.2009 and the Sub- Inspector of Police took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, examined five witnesses, including respondent No.3 and recorded their statements under Section 161(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that all the witnesses in one voice stated that the petitioner threatened respondent No. 3 with dire consequences. It is contended that even though the petitioner’s mother is the owner of the Function Hall, but there is ample prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner is involved in the commission of offence, and submitted that because of interim orders of this Court, they could not arrest the petitioner, further investigate into the complaint and file charge sheet. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents and also perused the case diary produced by respondent No.2. The criminal justice system, as established under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, sets into motion, the moment a complaint is lodged by a person, alleging commission of an offence by a person/s, which results in registration of a FIR by police. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the power to investigate into the genuineness or otherwise of the complaint/FIR, is vested in the police. Therefore, it is the duty of the police to investigate into the complaint/FIR and file charges sheet/report as the case may be. The law is well settled that if the complaint/FIR discloses commission of an offence, then investigation must necessarily follow in the interest of justice, but if the materials do not disclose commission of an offence, then no investigation should normally be permitted, for it will result in unnecessary harassment to the persons. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. Therefore, when a complaint/FIR discloses commission of an offence, investigation has to be necessarily done by the police so as to gather necessary materials, for establishing and proving an offence that is disclosed in the complaint/FIR. If the court interferes with the proper investigation in a complaint/FIR, which discloses commission of an offence, then the offender who committed the offence, will go unpunished, which will not be interest and welfare of the society. The law is well settled that interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the investigation into the allegations made in a FIR by the police at the threshold, and quashing the same before investigation is completed, is not justified, The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash a FIR, should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases, where the contents of the FIR, do not make out any crime against the person seeking its quashing. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. If the person, against whom allegations are made in the FIR apprehends arrest by the police, the course open to him is to obtain anticipatory bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash a FIR, even before the police makes an investigation into the allegations made in the FIR, and comes to a positive/negative conclusion. Though the Court, considering the power of the police to investigation into a complaint/FIR does not normally interfere with the investigation and quash the complaint/FIR, but as noted above, it can interfere with the investigation into a complaint/FIR by the police, if the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence, for if in such case, investigation is permitted to be carried on by the police, then it would lead to harassment and would be abuse of process of law. Therefore, having regard to the parameters and scope of interference by this Court with the investigation of a complaint/FIR and quashing the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it may be noticed whether the petitioner has made out any case for his non- arrest in connection with the crime in Crime No. 107 of 2009 on the file of Golkonda Poice Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner states that respondent No. 3 lodged the complaint against the owner of the Function Hall, and it is his case that his mother and not he is the owner of the Function Hall, and therefore, the respondents without ascertaining as to who is the real owner of the Function Hall, cannot arrest him. It is his further case that when he approached the criminal Court and filed application for anticipatory bail, the same was rejected. Whether or not the petitioner is the owner of the Function Hall is a matter for investigation by the police. No doubt the complaint, based on which the crime in question, is registered, does not specifically name the petitioner as an accused involved in the commission of offence. But a reading of the complaint discloses that the complainant alleged that the owner of the Function Hall, was making constructions without permission of the GHMC and that he was making such constructions in violation of the Court orders, and that goondas of the Function Hall, are threatening him and other residents of the locality with dire consequences. Respondent No.2 having registered the said complaint as FIR, took up investigation, and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the course of investigation, as is evident from the case diary produced by the respondents, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of five witnesses, and all of them stated that the petitioner is erecting the Gate, and that himself and his goondas are threatening them with dire consequences. Inasmuch as, during the course of investigation, it came to light through the statements of the five witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner along with others is alleged to have threatened respondent No.3 and other residents of the colony, respondent No.2 felt that the petitioner is prima facie involved in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, he included the name of the petitioner in the crime. Hence, such action of respondent No.2 in including the name of the petitioner in the commission of the crime, cannot be faulted. Merely, because the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was rejected by the criminal court, is no ground for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek the very quashing of the FIR on the ground that the FIR does not disclose his name and that it is registered against the owner of the Function Hall, and that he not being the owner of the Function Hall, cannot be roped in the crime. Hence, this is not a fit case, where this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the investigation into the complaint/FIR by the police, particularly when the power to investigate into a complaint/FIR, which discloses commission of an offence, is a function vested in the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, respondent No.2 shall complete the investigation expeditiously and file report/chargesheet. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 6th October, 2010 KSR