The main legal point established is that the High Court can interfere with the investigation in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, but such interference must be with due regard to the fact that investigation is the province of the police.

1. Second accused in Crime No. 187/85 of the Aranmula Police Station, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta is the petitioner. The prayer is to quash the proceedings invoking the inherent powers of this Court. Second respondent is the de facto complainant and third respondent is the first accused in that case. First respondent is the State of Kerala.

2. Alleging commission of an offence punishable under S.409 read with S.34 IPC., the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta against the third respondent and petitioner. Husband of the 2nd respondent is employed in Tehran. On the basis of the visa sent by her husband and valid upto 6-1-1984 she wanted to go to Tehran. The gist of her allegations in the complaint are these. Third respondent, falsely claiming to be an authorised travel agent, approached her with an offer to arrange ticket and received Rs. 6,844/- on 7-10-1983. Instead of arranging ticket, he temporarily misappropriated the amount and converted it to his own use after falsely informing her that ticket has been arranged. Ticket was arranged only on 28-12-1983 and hence she was not able to undertake the travel. Therefore the ticket was returned. The same was entrusted to the third respondent for getting refund but he said that refund could be had only through the petitioner through whom third respondent arranged the ticket. On 12-4-1984 the ticket was entrusted to the petitioner. After getting refund petitioner and third respondent, in furtherance of their common intention, misappropriated the amount and converted the same to their own use at first on the false pretext that refund has not been received and thereafter stating that the amount has been credited in the name of the third respondent. Petitioner is also the Director of a travel agency. The magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. Accordingly the case was registered and it is being investigated. Petitioner was arrested and produced before the magistrate and he is on interim bail granted by the magistrate,

3. The magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence and without doing so he ordered police investigation under S.156(3) of the Code. Now the question of taking cognizance may arise only when the report of investigation is filed under S.173(2) of the Code. Therefore the decisions reported in Sub-Divl. Magistrate, Delhi v. Ram Kali (AIR 1968 SC 1) and Barja v. Meethal Ummi (1985 KLT 532) pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner do not arise for consideration at all.

4. Now the position is that as ordered by the magistrate under S.156(3) a case has been registered and it is being investigated. The only question is whether this Court will be justified in interfering with the investigation in the exercise of inherent power. Investigation is the province of the police whereas enquiry and trial are within the powers of the court. In a case instituted on a police report the court gets jurisdiction to try the offender only when the final report is filed and cognizance taken. Till then it is the duty of the police to collect materials by investigation and decide whether the materials are sufficient to charge-sheet the accused to stand trial. When once that discretion is exercised and the accused is either charge-sheeted or a refer report is filed the court gets jurisdiction to assess the correctness of the discretion. The decision in Barja's case (1985 KLT 532) becomes relevant only at that stage. If the accused is charge-sheeted, before taking cognizance on the police report the court can apply its mind to decide whether the charge-sheet discloses the offence or offences alleged. So also if it is a refer report the court can decide whether further investigation has to be ordered or whether cognizance has to be taken in other methods provided by law. That does not mean that the High Cour