Ajit Borthakur, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to register a case against the miscreants, involved in illegal sale of their community land, on the strength of their complaint, dated 27.03.2018, and to investigate into the allegations made therein.

2. The petitioners' case, in a nut-shell, is that they lodged a complaint, on 27.03.2018, with the respondent No. 1/the Chief Secretary-cum-the Chief Vigilance Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh; the respondent No. 3/the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Special Investigation Cell, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the respondent No. 4/the Officer-in-Charge, Special Investigation Cell, Government of Arunachal Pradesh alleging, inter-alia, in connection with sale of their community land, measuring 73 acres by private persons, named therein, in connivance with the District administration, without their consent, to the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in a very clandestine manner. The petitioners alleged that in the aforesaid transaction, the miscreants resorted to various criminal acts such as preparation of false bills, misappropriation of public fund etc. and without following the prescribed procedure in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, the said complaint has not been registered as a criminal case for the purpose of investigation.

3. Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the complaint filed by the petitioners disclosed commission of cognisable offences and in view of the mandate of the Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, the respondent authorities, although it is obligatory on their part to register a case, have not done so till date.

4. Mr. K. Ete, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents, submits that as per the report of the respondent No. 3, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and it revealed that the compensation amount paid to Sri. Dorjee Letro, Sri. Yeshi Tsewang, Sri. Nima Dorjee, Sri. Tashi and Sri. Dowla Sermupa, considering the land in question being their private land. Mr. Ete assures that the enquiry into the allegations will be conducted in a time bound manner and action will be taken as per law. Mr. Ete, however, submits that no criminal case has been registered so far on the complaint.

5. Be it mentioned that Section 154 Cr.P.C., 1973 casts a statutory duty upon the Police Officer to register a case on receipt of an FIR as to commission of a cognisable offence. The case shall be registered as disclosed in the FIR. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Only in the case, where information received does not disclose a cognisable offence a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain, whether cognisable offence is disclosed or not. This is the mandate of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Case (Supra). In Para 120 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held as herein below extracted :-

"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 cognisable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation.

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

120.3 If the enquiry discloses the commission of a cognisable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary enquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first information forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons