D.S. Tewatia, J.
1. The petitioners have sought the quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 323 read with Sections 134, 160, 109 and 506 I. P. C. and the order dated 18-9-1979 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal, dismissing the application of the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings.
2. The case set up in the petition is that the criminal Court in question was not competent to take cognizance of the offences on a police report, which itself was illegal, as the investigation on which it was based was illegal in that the offences being non-cognizable the police authorities were not competent to investigate unless prior permission of the Magistrate as envisaged in Sub-section (2) of Section 155, Criminal Procedure Code, was obtained, which in this case was never obtained.
3. Before dealing with the case as set up on behalf of the petitioners, I may notice the relevant facts which can be stated thus : that on 2-7-1977 Krishan Lal submitted information to Police Post, Cheeka, which was taken down in the Daily Diary. The substance of the information as disclosed in para 1 of the petition is as follows:
That I Krishan Lal applicant mentioned in column No. 2 present at Police Post Cheeka state that today i. e. 2-7-1977 at about 5 p. m., two Ninangs came to my cloth shop in Chhoti Mandi, who called me outside the shop and asked my name. I told that my name is Krishan Lal, After this, travelling a distance of 5 paces, he asked me if I had any dispute with Chattar Singh L. V. O, Land Mortgage Bank, Cheeka. He has sent us; After they started beating me, one blow was given 'on my head with sword (sword in its case), another blow was given on my neck, another blow on the leg, and another on my left wrist. People started gathering on my noise and they ran away. Earlier to this, on 20-6-1977, Chattar Singh had abused me at my shop, Panchayat had got the matters settled. I, Ashok, who runs a shop of motor-cycle repairs and Bishan Dass son of Nand Paints Shop Keeper, Cheeka, can identify the Nihangs if they come before us. I got myself medically examined at Primary Health Centre at Guhla. I produce the M. L. R. 42 before you. I have heard the statement which is correct.
The Station House Officer thereon made the endorsement that the information disclosed neither a cognizable offence nor breach of peace and, therefore, no action at his end was required. Copy of the information was given to Krishan Lal to be handed over to the Magistrate concerned. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintedent of Police, Kaithal, ordered that a case under Sections 160, 323 and 109, I. P. C. be registered, in pursuance whereof on 4-7-77 an F. I. R. under Sections 323, 160 and 109 I. P. C. was registered in police Station, Guhla the F. I. R. being verbatim copy of the Daily Diary information. Thereafter, the case was investigated and challan was put in. On 29-9-1977, the petitioners were charged for offences under Sections 160, 323 and 506, as also Section 109, I. P. C. On 3-5-1979, the petitioners moved an application for quashing of the proceedings which was dismissed by the Magistrate by his order dated 18-9-1979, as already mentioned.
4. Mr. Rajesh Chaudhry, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the facts asserted in the F. I. R. do not disclose any offence under Section 160, I. P. C. which was the only cognizable offence, and, therefore, the police was not competent to investigate and collect facts without the prior permission of the Magistrate. The investigation being incomplete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 155, Cr. P. C., the report under Section 173 thereof would be illegal and on that basis the Magistrate could not have taken the cognizance of the offence and, therefore, proceedings before him are void ab initio and deserve to be quashed. In support of his submission that no offence under Section 160, I. P. C. was made out from the facts asserted in the F. I. R., he placed reliance on P, Rami Reddy v. Narasi Reddy AIR 1936 Mad 924 Jodhey v. State : AIR1952All788 ; and Podan v. State of Kerala 1962 (1) Cri LJ 339 (Ker).
5. I find no merit in the case set up in the petition and asserted by Mr. Chaudhry. The F. I. R., that was ordered to be registered and, in fact, registered, included an offence which was cognizable, that is, the offence under Section 160 I. P. C. The moment an F. I. R. is registered with cognizable offence, that gives jurisdiction to the police to investigate the case, The investigation cannot be faulted on the ground that the offence that was, registered was in fact, not made out from the facts disclosed in the F. I. R. At that stage, it is a question of view that a police official recording the F. I. R. takes, as the decisions of the Courts are not before him to guide him and, again, it is a moot point as to what amounts to an 'affray'. It is not beyond the pale of possibility that another Court or another Judge may take an entirely different view of the matter than the one taken in the three decisions that have been cited by Mr. Chaudhry. If, therefore, one of the many offences that the F. I. R. disclosed, was cognizable, then it was open to the police to investigate even in the non-cognizable offences also. Therefore, the investigation suffers from no illegality and, consequently, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the police report has to be held to be legal. Hence, no case is made out for quashing the proceedings pending before the Magistrate.
6. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.