The word ‘incorrigible’ is perhaps an inadequate expression to describe the conduct of the Station House Officers of the Police Stations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The officer in-charge of L. Kota Police Station, Vizianagaram District, is no exception in this regard, for, despite the law declared by the Apex Court in unequivocal terms as far back as the year 1992 in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335)and being reiterated from time to time, with the recent Judgment being Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.68/2008, dt. 12-11-2013), FIRsare not being registered promptly on the complaints given to the Police disclosing commission of cognizable offences. The complaint dated 27-6-2011 made by the petitioner to respondent No.4-Station House Officer (SHO) is kept in cold storage. Having made a long wait for more than two years, the petitioner at last approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

This case came up before this Court, first time on 26-11-2013 and underwent four adjournments till 17-12-2013. On that day, when this Court has expressed its dismay at the inaction of the Station House Officer in registering the FIR, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has requested for a short adjournment. On the following day to which the case was posted, this Court has prima facie opined that the contents of the representation made by the petitioner to respondent No.2 on 27-6-2011 disclosed commission of a cognizable offence pertaining to Section 379 IPC and passed an order directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be personally present before this Court to explain the reasons for their not registering the FIR despite the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Accordingly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been personally present.

At the hearing, all that the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted is that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 have taken charge of their respective offices as the Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police on 5-11-2013 and 11-11-2013, respectively, they were not aware of the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader however stated that after the case was adjourned on 18-12-2013, on the same day, respondent No.4 registered the FIR. She has therefore requested for closing the Writ Petition.

The Writ Petitions of this nature galore. Neither respondent Nos.3 and 4, nor the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing them, would dispute that the well settled legal position is that if the complaint received by them disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, it is imperative for the SHO to register the FIR as envisaged under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In Bhajan Lal (1-supra), the Supreme Court held at paras 32 and 33, as under :

“ …. An overall reading of the codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.

It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge 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.”

Dealing with a similar situation, in Sammeta Lakshman Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2010(3) ALT (Crl) 93 (AP)), while repelling the plea advanced on behalf of the State that the Police cannot straightaway register an FIR without making a preliminary enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations, I made a thorough analysis of the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. with reference to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (1-supra) and held as under :

“From the discussion undertaken above, the inescapable conclusions that emerge are th