Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 in person.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present criminal writ petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Nagar P.S. Case No. 248 of 2022 dated 29.4.2022 registered under Sections 416/ 417/ 120-B of the I.P.C. filed by the informant (respondent no. 7).

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare reading of the F.I.R., there is absolutely no ingredient of any offence either under I.P.C. or under any other law for the time being in force under which case has been constituted. The allegation as mentioned in the F.I.R. is against Ms. Meena Kashyap and one Mr. Ashutosh Guru. Against others, particularly, the present petitioner, there is nothing transpires from the F.I.R. The contents of the F.I.R. is very short, which is as follows: –

^^eSa jkts'k dqekj flag iq= Jh voèk fcgkjh flag] jksM uñ- 1] lrsUnz uxj] vkSjaxkckn eqdnek dk;e djrk gw¡A
¼1½ fnukad 20-7-21] 2-12 ihŒ,eŒ ij ¼6206412932½ ehuh d';i ¼9337195669½ us eq> ij vkb&Qksu dj vius dks ,l,QvkbZvks dk vfèkdkjh cudj ncko cuk;kA
¼2½ esjs }kjk mldh tkudkjh ysus ij oks cksyh dh vk'kqrks"k xq# dkjiksjsV viQs;lZ gsM us mls vkb&Qksu djus dk ncko cuk;k Fkk ds osnkUrk fjlksUlsal esa bUVZu gSaA
¼3½ ;g dsl fuEufyf[kr ds f[kykQ gSa
¼d½ ehuk d';i] bUVZu] osnkUrk 6206412932
¼c½ vk'kqrks"k xq# gsM dkjiksjsV viQs;lZ 7798985875
¼l½ osnkUrk fjlksUlsal dEiuh jkUMh;k ihvks Hknzd] ih,l Hknzd :Yj izfrfufèk
¼1½ vfuy vxzoky] ps;jeSu] osnkUrk fjlksUlsal
¼2½ uohu vxzoky mikè;{k osnkUrk fjlksUlsal
¼3½ oyoar jkBkSj lhbZvks osnkUrk vkb&Qsdj
lHkh dk irk
xzke jUMh;k
Fkkuk & Hknzd ¼:Yj½
ftyk & Hknzd ¼vksMhlk½**

4. Counsel further submits that the informant is admittedly the employee of management of the M/s Vedanta Limited having Employee Code No. 2247. Counsel submits that the present case has been filed by the private respondent in retaliation of his dismissal from the service dated 16.03.2021 followed by the departmental inquiry.

5. Counsel further submits that petitioner is Vice-Chairman of the Company and does not have any consent with the allegations. Counsel further submits that informant was working as Senior General Manager (Mines) of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited.

6. After the said Corporation was taken over by the Vedanta Group Limited on 4.8.2016, the said informant was transferred from Orissa to Karnataka w.e.f. 4.1.2021. The informant become aggrieved and started litigating with Company. He filed a civil suit against his transfer and also filed injunction in the said suit for staying his transfer but his application was dismissed on 10.3.2021.

7. Counsel further refers and relied on the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. In the conclusion of the said case, paragraphs 120 and 121 are most relevant, which are as follows: –

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offen