Banerjee, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Since the decision of Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (King Emperor) vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (1944) 71 IA 203 and till this day there is existing one salutary principle that in normal circumstances, the law Courts would not thwart any investigation and criminal proceedings initiated must be allowed to have its own course under the provisions of the Code. The powers of the police ought to stand unfettered to investigate cases where they suspect or even have reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and the First Information Report (F.I.R.) discloses of such offence. The Judicial Committee in the decision of Nazir Ahmed (supra) observed : "In their Lordship's opinion, however, the more serious aspect of the case is to be found in the resultant interference by the Court with the duties of the police. Just as it is essential that everyone accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes on them the duty of inquiry. In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under S. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then."
(3.) It is paramount to note however that the observations of Lord Porter in Nazir Ahmed stands qualified by inclusion of the following : "No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation." ;