SONIA GOKANI, J.

Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Chetna Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:-

“A. Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the concerned respondent to register the written complaint (Annexure A) as First Information Report against the concerned accused persons named therein and, thereafter, to investigate the same in accordance with law.

C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the concerned respondent to submit report pursuant to the written complaint (Annexure A) of the petitioner and, thereafter, further be pleased to issue direction for registration of the First Information Report.

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other order as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Dipen Chaudhari appearing for the petitioner has urged that the Habeas Corpus petition being Special Criminal Application No. 7333 of 2016 is also filed by this petitioner wherein, Rule was issued returnable on 10th October, 2016 and it was director to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mehsana-respondent No. 2 to oversee and monitor the investigation so as to trace out corpus, a minor girl aged 16 years and submit a report to this Court accordingly. However, no FIR so far has been registered.

4. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective sides, the grievance putforth by the petitioner can be put an end to in wake of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein the Court has held thus:-

111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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 offence.

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes;

(b) Commercial offences;

(c) Medical negligence cases;

(d) Corruption cases;

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

vii. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must b