V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Crl. Misc. No. 8238 of 1997 is allowed.
The sole prayer made by the petitioner in the present petition is for a direction to register First Information Report against respondents No. 5 to 9.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice to say that petitioners'' claim is that an offence punishable under sections 323/324/354/427/452/506/148/149 IPC had been committed by respondents 5 to 9 and that despite their complaint, copy of which is Annexure P3, First Information Report has not even been recorded.
Needless to say that respondents 5 to 9 controvert the assertions and claim that it is a counterblast. It is also contended that respondent No. 7 at the relevant time, on the fateful day i.e. 28.11.1996 was on duty. He further states that against the petitioners, FIR of the same date had been registered and their application seeking anticipatory bail had been dismissed firstly by the Court of Sessions and subsequently in this Court. According to him, the assertions made are patently false and incorrect.
3. The fact remains that on basis of complaint that was made, a cognizable offence is drawn. At this stage, this Court will not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It is entirely within the domain of the police to investigate the matter and thereupon submit a report contemplated under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure. But investigation as such after recording of First Information Report must proceed. The answer otherwise is provided by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. In paragraph 31 of the judgment, the Supreme Court clearly had drawn a distinction as to whether the information should be a credible information or not. It has been held as under :
31. "Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression "information" without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1) (a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and "credible information" are used. Evidently, the nonqualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1) (a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, ''reasonableness'' or ''credibility'' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case."
Thereupon the conclusion was drawn in paragraph 32, which reads as under :
"It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say to register a case on the basis of such information.
4. Keeping in view the said decision, further discussion becomes unnecessary and accordingly it is directed that First Information Report on basis of complaint, Exh. P/3 be recorded. The Court would hasten to add that nothing said herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion about the correctness of assertions and it would be indeed for the police to investigate and arrive at a correct conclusion.
