1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging notice dated 17.01.2012 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent whereunder and whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent with all relevant documents and connected papers in person on 20.01.2012.

2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Visweshwara Infrastructure Private Limited. By virtue of the directions of the first respondent vide C.No.9468/C34/CID/2011, dated 30.12.2011, the second respondent was nominated as enquiry officer to conduct inquiry on the complaint lodged by respondents 3 to 6 against one M/s. Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Private Limited, the petitioner and others. The second respondent has taken up the inquiry into the matter and proposed to examine the petitioner as a witness to ascertain the facts of the complaint within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that except the impugned notice, he was not furnished either with a copy of the directions alleged to have been issued by the first respondent to the second respondent or with copies of the alleged complaint.

3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and contents in the counter affidavit contain factual aspects of the case, which are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the point in this Writ Petition.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that basing on the complaint submitted by the third respondent, the first respondent directed the second respondent to conduct detailed enquiry and that the petitioner was sought to be examined as a witness to get certain information with reference to the above act of forgery.

5. The point that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the first respondent has power to investigate into a cognizable offence without registering the case as required under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In other words, whether the first respondent or police can conduct inquiry before investigation to ascertain truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint ?

6. Learned senior counsel Sri E.Manohar appearing for the petitioner contended that without registering a case, police have no power to conduct an inquiry before investigation; that, admittedly, no case is registered against any person so as to summon any person for examination including the accused, and hence, he prays to quash the impugned notice.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner was called as a witness to speak about the allegations in the complaint and that the first respondent has got power under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to do so, and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.

8. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not expressly bar a police officer, much less the first respondent, from making a preliminary inquiry so as to ascertain truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and that as police got power to investigate into the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

9. In a decision in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. & others (2012 (3) SCALE 152), an important issue viz. whether under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.), a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report when a cognizable offence is made out or he has some latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the case, arose for consideration. On this aspect, learned counsel appearing therein brought to the notice of the Apex Court about two sets of cases decided by the Apex Court expressing totally divergent judicial opinions. They are referred as follows: (paras 96 to 107)

“(96.) Thi