Honble SEMA. J.–Leave granted.

(2). This appeal is preferred by accused, nine in numbers, against the judgment and order dated 8.10.2002 passed by the High Court whereby the High Court directed the concerned Magistrate to proceed in the matter in accordance with law as contained in Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned public prosecutor for the State.

(4). The controversy involved in this appeal is in short compass being purely a question of law and it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeal.

(5). Complaint Case No. 223C/ 1996 was filed before the Sub- Divisional, Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari, District East Champaran by Yogendra Prasad - the respondent herein, to the effect that on 7.6.1996 at about 6.00 PM the accused Lalan Chaudhary, Din Bandhu Chaudhary, Sanjeev Kumar @ Ghutan, Lalbabu Prasad, Bhola Shah, Nageshwar Shah, Bhagirat Raut. Joka Majhi and Suruj Raut having formed unlawful assembly and armed with Lathi, Fatta, Farsa, Nalkatwa and Rifle, illegally entered in the residential house of the complainant and indulged in Loot-Paat of household articles and also teased female members of the family. When the complainant objected to the accused, the accused persons gave severe beating with slaps. fists and fatta and caused bodily injuries to the appellant. The complaint further disclosed hat the accused looted away the household articles comprising utensils, gold articles, silver articles, wearing apparels etc. including cash. The total value of the loot was Rs. 19,000/-, as detailed in the complaint. In the said complaint case itself, filed before the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, the offences under Sections 147. 148, 149, 448,. 452, 323 and 395 were disclosed.

(6). It appears that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, before whom the complaint was lodged. had endorsed the complaint to the SHO, Police Station Ghorasahan, District East Champaran to register an FIR and to investigate. The SHO of the concerned Police Station, however, registered the case under Sections 452/380/323/34 IPC against the accused. Ultimately, the charge- sheet was submitted by the Police only under Sections 452/323/34 IPC. It would, therefore, clearly appear that no case was registered against the accused for offences disclosed in the complaint under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448 and 395 IPC and no investigation was carried out by the Police in respect of the aforesaid sections of law and committed grave miscarriage of justice.

(7). Section 154 Cr.P.C. reads:

"154. Information in cognizable cases. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or tinder his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the Information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."

(8). Section 154 of the Code thus casts a statutory duty upon police off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document