The judgment emphasizes the mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C and the need for preliminary inquiry in certain cases, while highlighting the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the failure to register FIR and conduct investigation into the allegations raised in Exts.P1 and P2 complaints. The petitioner is working as Vehicle Supervisor at the Vizhinjam Depot of the KSRTC. The incumbent Managing Director of the KSRTC unearthed a scam involving a highly placed official of the Corporation. It was reported that in the internal audit of the Corporations' accounts for the period 2012-2015, grave financial irregularities and misappropriation by the then Accounts Manager, K.M.Sreekumar had been unearthed. Taking cue from that revelation, the petitioner, who claims to have been agitating the issue of corruption on his own, lodged Exts.P1 and P2 complaints alleging that, along with Sri.K.M.Sreekumar, the then Executive Director (Vigilance) Sri. Sharad Mohammed and certain other officials were also involved in the misappropriation of public money. The Police having refused to register crime based on the complaints, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 and P2 by conducting proper investigation.

2. Heard Sri.M.R.Sarin Panicker, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew attention to the mandatory terms in which Section 154 of Cr.P.C is phrased and placed strong reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v State of U.P [(2014) 2 SCC 1], to contend that the Police is bound to register FIR, when commission of cognisable offence/s is brought to its notice.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India, [(2007) 6 SCC 171], Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, contended that the obligation of the police to register FIR cannot be enforced by straightaway rushing to the High Court and seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It was submitted that the Managing Director of the corporation having raised the allegation of misappropriation, the matter will definitely be investigated and that interlopers like the petitioner should not be permitted to meddle with the investigation. It was contended that in Lalita Kumari (supra), the question whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to register an FIR, de hors the alternative remedies under Sections 36, 156(3) and 200 of Cr.P.C, had not arisen for consideration. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision in Fr.Sebastian Vadakkumpadan V Shine Varghese and others (2018 (3) KHC 590).

5. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decisions cited by the Public Prosecutor does not hold good in the light of the authoritative pronoucement in Lalita Kumari and that the distinction drawn by the Division Bench in Fr.Sebastian Vadakkumpadan is legally unsustainable. It is submitted that pending the writ petition, the petitioner had been issued with a notice under Section 160 Cr.PC, pursuant to which he appeared before the second respondent and gave Ext.P4 statement. According to the learned Counsel, having recorded the petitioner’s statement, the second respondent is bound to register FIR and commence investigation.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor countered this argument and submitted by pointing out that, as per the instructions received, the statement given by the petitioner is vague and is based on surmises and newspaper reports alone.

7. The legal obligation cast on the Police to register FIR on receipt of information regarding commission of cognisable offence/s is no longer res integra in the light of the declaration of law in Lalita Kumari. Therein, after threadbare scrutiny of the relevant provisions and careful consideration of precedents, the Apex Court concluded as under;

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1. The regi