1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-registration of the first information report on the basis of his written complaint dated 9.4.2019, addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2. It is his say that though cognizable offence is made out in the said complaint, his complaint is not being registered as the first information report. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779.

3. Both the sides have been heard. Having considered the submissions made by both the sides and the material on record, as also having considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the grievance put forth by the petitioner can be put an end to by directing the respondent authority accordingly. It would be beneficial to regurgitate the relevant paragraph of the said decision, which reads as under :

“120. 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 be reflected in the General Diary entry.

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

4. At this stage, it would also be apt to reproduce the relevant paragraph from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Habib Jeelani (supra), which reads as under :

“The exceptions that were car