1. The petitioner is a proprietor of a firm which undertakes executive production of advertising and cinematography films. The petitioner entered into a contract with one Mercurio Cinematografics. The petitioner was to organise production of a 60 seconds film to be used for promotion of Asian Games 2006 to be held in Doha Qatar. The petitioner was to organise for the shooting of the said 60 seconds film to be filmed in India. The petitioner produced the said Indian Part of the film. As monies were not paid as agreed and as demanded by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 51 of the Copyright Act against the accused with Antop Hill Police Station. The case of the petitioner is that though the offence committed under Section 51 of the Copyright Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of upto three years and fine and hence a cognizable offence, yet the FIR was not registered. Hence the present Petition.

2. In this Petition, following questions arise :-

a. Whether once an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is received by a police officer in charge of a police station, he is duty bound to register a FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

b. Whether it is open to the police officer to make a preliminary inquiry to find out whether information received by him discloses cognizable offence or not.

c. Whether remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or a petition under section 482 of the Code is open to a person aggrieved by the refusal of the police officer to register a FIR when alternative remedy of filing a private complaint is open to him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP have addressed us on the above questions.

4. We have heard Mr.Gorwadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Gorwadkar look us to the relevant provisions of the Code. He submitted that section 154 of the Code refers to every information relating to a cognizable offence. The word "Information" is unqualified as to the truth or veracity of the said information. According to Mr.Gorwadkar, section 154 of the Code does not give any discretion to the officer in charge of a police station to make any inquiry to satisfy himself that a cognizable offence has been committed or has been disclosed when he receives an information which relates to commission of a cognizable offence and he has no option but to register the offence.

5. Mr.Gorwadkar submitted that at the stage of section 154, no discretion vests in the police officer. According to Mr.Gorwadkar, even frivolous complaints or false complaints or exaggerated complaints are required to be registered. Mr.Gorwadkar placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others, (2006) 2 SCC 677 : AIR 2006 SC 3376 : [2006 All MR (Cri.) 1187 (S.C.) and Mohindra Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2113.

6. Mr.Gorwadkar submitted that it is true that the complainant can file a private complaint. But availability of an alternative remedy is no substitute for registration of FIR. According to Ms.Gorwadkar refusal to register a FIR in spite of disclosure of cognizable offence amounts to dereliction of duty by police. In support of his submissions Mr.Gorwadkar relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari (2006) ALL MR (Cri.) 1187 (S.C.) (supra).

7. The learned APP Mr.Mhambre contended that in case of criminal breach of trust or cheating, it may be necessary to ask the complainant to disclose cogent materials regarding the ingredients of such offence. According to the learned APP Mr.Mhambre, whether a complaint discloses a cognizable offence or not is to be primarily decided on the basis of the contents of the complaint and the material in support thereof or material gathered as a result of discreet enquiry conducted by the police officer. Mr.Mhambre further submitted that in Shashikant Vs. Central Bureau