The main legal point established is that the police officer is obligated to register information relating to a cognizable offence in writing and has no discretion in complying with the requirements of Section 154(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This Original Petition is filed by a person who alleges that he was sought to be poisoned. According to the petitioner he filed a complaint in that regard before the Sub Inspector of Police. Irinjalakkuda, respondent No. 1 herein. According to the Petitioner since the information given by him was regarding a cognisable offence he bona fide expected that his complaint would be proceeded with in terms of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But to his dismay, the petitioner found that the first respondent did not make any enquiry as contemplated. The petitioner therefore filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police. Though the receipt thereof was acknowledged with the information that the same was being forwarded to the Circle Inspector of Police, the petitioner finds that no proper investigation is being taken up or conducted. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to conduct an investigation into the allegations made by him in his statement before the first respondent and the third respondent by a senior officer of the Crime Branch, Central Range, Trichur or any other officer nominated in that behalf by the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandrum.

2. In the statement filed by the first respondent he submits that when he received the information in writing from the petitioner he registered the same as petition No. 102/97. Apart from that another complaint filed before the Circle Inspector of Police was registered as petition No. 7/AP/PTN/CIH/97. An enquiry was conducted into the above complaint. The first respondent has set out the information he has gathered as a result of his enquiry. According to the first respondent it was crystal clear from the complaint itself that the petitioner had not consumed poison along with the liquor which he had taken either on 3-5-1997 or on 4-5-1997 as claimed by him. The first respondent has also set out that during the enquiry he had come to know that the petitioner had given some amounts to one Unnikrishnan as a loan and was collecting exorbitant interest. Since no evidence was revealed during the enquiry conducted on the complaint, no further action was required and accordingly the complaint was closed. It is further submitted that if the petitioner still wanted to proceed against any person, the petitioner can straightway file a complaint before the concerned Court and thereby pursue his remedy.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a police officer received information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence it was the duty of that officer to take it down in writing if the information is given orally or to receive the written information and immediately enter the substance of that information in the book to be kept by such officer in the form prescribed by the Government in that behalf. Counsel also points out that on recording such information the officer concerned was also bound to give the informant a copy of the statement recorded free of cost. According to counsel for the petitioner this is the scheme of Section 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is not open to the officer to whom the information as contemplated by Section 154 of the Code is given to treat it as a petition and consign it to the petitions register. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after entering such information in the petitions register or if given in writing simply including it in the petitioners register normally no proper investigation is made into the information furnished and quite often the investigation turns out to be one not about the complaint but about the complainant himself. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Government submits that even if information which would come within S. 154(1) of the Code is given the officer concerned has a discretion to investigate further on the basis of that information or not to i