K. Sreedhar Rao, Actg. C.J.—The generic question as to whether the investigating officer should first register the FIR and thereupon embark upon investigation is seized by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 1. There were conflicting views with regard to the registration of FIR. One view is to the effect that the investigating officer has discretion to make a preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR. The counter view was to the effect that the investigating officer has no discretion but to register the FIR and thereafter to embark upon investigation. In Criminal Petition No. 15941/2012, the facts reveal that the investigating officer gets credible information that in the Sub-Registrar's office, the Sub-Registrar is demanding and accepting bribe from the public, who are presenting their documents for registration. The investigating officer, without registering the said information, proceeds to the Sub-Registrar's office. Upon search of the Sub-Registrar and other officials, he does not find any money in their possession, but from other persons who are in the office and who are not the officials, substantial sums are found in possession. The investigating officer draws up mahazar, seizes the money from the said persons and thereafter arrests the Sub-Registrar, the official staff and all others from whom the amount is seized, comes back to the police station and registers the FIR.

2. The facts in Criminal Petition No. 15852/2012 are that on 20.07.2012, the investigating officer gets credible information about the illegal demand and acceptance of bribe by the Sub-Registrar, Basavanabagewadi. The investigating officer proceeds to the Sub-Registrar's office and seizes cash of Rs. 31,550/- which is said to be in the possession of accused No. 2 -- Document Writer and comes to know that accused No. 1 Sub-Registrar is collecting the said amount through accused No. 2 from the persons registering the documents. Thereafter, mahazar is drawn, accused persons are arrested and brought to the police station and a case is registered.

3. The learned Single Judge, in the above criminal petitions, has gone into the question as to whether registration of the FIR is a condition precedent to embark upon investigation and has made the following observations in para 26;

26. In the aforesaid circumstances, as the registration of a crime is not a condition precedent in the circumstances stated above, with all respect at my command to my learned brother, I disagree with a view expressed therein. Therefore, it appears just and proper that these matters be placed before the Division Bench or a Larger Bench to consider the aforesaid aspects.

Hence, the Registry is directed to place these matters before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to refer these matters to a Division Bench or Larger Bench.

The learned Single Judge has differed with the view taken by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 3213/2012 and connected matters and therefore referred the matter to the Division Bench for consideration of the substantial question of law as to,

whether the investigating officer is bound to register the FIR and thereafter embark upon investigation.

4. The normal protocol of investigation in trap cases commences with recording of a complaint of a specific allegation against the specific public servant. The investigating officer registers the complaint, would send the copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional Court and two panch witnesses are secured from the Government Departments. The demonstration of the effect of phenolphthalein powder on the sodium carbonate solution would be given by colour test by smearing phenolphthalein powder on the bait money produced by the complainant. Sodium carbonate solution is prepared in two bowls, the complainant is asked to handle the tainted currency notes and later on asked to dip his fingers in the solution, which would turn pink. This scientific exercise is employed