( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 5 to arrest his father (respondent No. 4) in connection with the Case FIR No. 93/98 under Sections 380/ 406, Indian Penal Code registered at the Police Station Nazafgarh.

( 2 ) IT is undisputed that the respondent No. 4, Mr. L. R. Gupta, Senior Advocate, for this Court is father of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, Sanjay Gupta is the younger brother of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 is the wife of respondent No. 2. On 7. 3. 1998, the petitioner lodged a report at the Police Station Nazafgarh charging Mr. L. R. Gupta with having committed theft of his firearms as well as the arms licences. Consequently, FIR No. 93/98 under Sections 380/406, Indian Penal Code was registered at the Police Station Nazafgarh. According to the petitioner, on 19. 3. 1998 the said firearms as well as licences were recovered from the bedroom of his father (respondent No. 4 ). After recovery of the alleged stolen property Inspector Mahesh , Kumar attempted to arrest the respondent No. 2 but he was wrongfully prevented from. doing so by the Police Commissioner, Delhi. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction for arrest of the respondent No. 4.

( 3 ) BY the order dated 3. 8. 1998, show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 5 only. Mr. P. K. Bhardwaj, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West District New Delhi has filed his counter affidavit stating therein that during investigation the firearms and the licences were recovered from a portion of the premises No. 6, Anand Lok in which the petitioner earlier used to reside and further, according to the statement of the respondent No. 4, the firearms and the licences were kept in the portion of the said house which was in occupation of the petitioner. He further stated that the investigation is in progress and after completion thereof the report will be submitted before the Court concerned embodying the result of the investi- gation.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that since the petitioner s weapons and their licences were recovered from the possession of the respondent No. 4, he is liable to be arrested in respect of the offence of theft committed by him. It is undisputed that the FIR No. 93/98 lodged by the petitioner has been registered at the Police Station Nazafgarh under Sections 380/406, Indian Penal Code and the investigation is in progress. It is significant to mention that the petitioner contended that his firearms and licences were recovered from the bedroom of the respondent No. 4. On the contrary, Mr. P. K. Bhardwaj stated in his affidavit the said firearms were recovered from the portion of the house occupied by the petitioner. Thus, there is a dispute regarding the place of recovery of the said firearms, which cannot be decided in the present proceedings. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether this Court can direct the Station House Officer of the police station concerned to arrest the respondent No. 4 in respect of the case registered under Sections 380/406, Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 93/98. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ). That Chapter deals with "information to the police and their powers to investigate". Section 154 deals with information relating to the commis- sion of a cognizable offence, and the procedure to be adopted in respect of the same. Section 155 deals with information in respect of non-cognizable offences. Section 156 empowers a police officer, incharge of a police station, to investigate any cognizable offence, without the orders of the Magistrate. Sub-section (3) of Section 156, authorises a Magistrate empowered under Section 190, to order investigation as mentioned in Section 156 (1