( 1 ). The matter raises an interesting issue viz. whether recourse to inquest proceedings u/s. 174 Cr. P. C. obviates the requirement of registration of FIR and whether negative inquest report closes the case for good and operates as bar against such registration and follow-up investigation.

( 2 ). Petitioner s son, Markandey Dubey died in alleged suspicious circumstances. He was married to one neelam on 7. 2. 1991 and was living with her at his father-in-law s place with one Ram Nandan, a tenant there. Petitioner claims to have received a telephonic message on 6. 6. 1996 that his son was in a serious condition taken to RML Hospital where he was declared brought dead. He alleges that, even though, ha had informed police officials of P. S. Patel Nagar about the suspected murdered of his son but his pleas went unattended. He later approached them for registration of FIR, but no action was taken. He then waited for 20 days or so and formally lodged a complaint in writing with Delhi Police Commissioner on 25. 6. 1996 for which he was was threatened. He lodged a second complaint on 23. 7. 1996 and meanwhile, one Devender Mishra, other tenant of the house informed him on 1. 6. 1996 that his son was murdered by Ram Nandan and Neelam. This constrained him to file Crl. W. P. 714/1996 which was opposed by respondents on the ground that his complaint was found without substance. This petition was eventually disposed of by order dated 6. 11. 1999 requiring DCP (West) (R-3) to treat it as a complaint and to inquire into it under law. Even so, nothing was done in the matter and no FIR was registered. On the contrary, he was informed by communication dated 4. 12. 1999 by R-4 that his complaint was found without any substance.

( 3 ). Petitioner challenges this communication and seeks its quashment and also a direction to respondents to register a case against these suspects named by him in his complaint u/s 302/34 IPC.

( 4 ). L/c for petitioner contended that respondents had failed in due discharge of their statutory obligation by not registering an FIR on petitioner s complaint, even when, it, prima facie, disclosed a cognizable offence. They had no option but to do so u/s 154 (1) of IPC and it was not open to them to embark on any elaborate or detailed enquiry to test the reliability and correctness of the allegations therein. He also submitted that recourse to inquest proceedings u/s 174 Cr. P. C. was inconsequential and would not stand in the way of registration of FIR. He cited several supreme Court judgements including Mohindro vs. State of Punjab, 2000 (1) SCALE 63. P. Damodaran Vs. State 1993 crl. L. J. 404, Podda Narayana Vs. State of Andhra pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252 and some judgments of this court also, including Kuldip Singh Vs. State 1994 (3) c. C. Cases 44 to show that no inquiry was legally permissible to be made to test the correctness or reasonableness of the allegations made in the information laid before a police officer related to a commission of a cognizable offence.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS case is that DCP (West) had conducted full-fledged inquiry into the matter and found no substance in petitioner s complaint. It is explained by them that following receipt of information about incident inquest proceedings u/s 174 Cr. P. C. were initiated. The post-mortem was conducted and statements of family members, relatives and neighbours recorded, but none of them suspected any foul play. Nor was any external injury found on deceased s body. The viscera and blood of the deceased was sent to CFSL for examination, but report showed no presence of any poisonous substance in it. That second test conducted under the orders of this court also did not yield any result because percentage of alcohol could not be detected from the dry blood by then. The complainant was also examined who alleged illicit relationship between his daughter-in-law and Ram Nandan which was found based on either hearsay or his perceived denial of justice.

( 6