The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its statutory duty under section 154 of the Code can be denied unless specific exceptions enumerated by the Apex Court come to the rescue of the informant/victim.

HEMANT GUPTA, CJ.

The challenge in the present intra-Court appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 23-6-2017 in W.P. No. 8044/2017 whereby in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Shweta Bhadauria v. State of M.P., 2016 MPU Online 28 : 2017 (1) MPJR 247, it was held that if an FIR is not registered on the basis of a complaint which discloses a cognizable offence, the remedy available to an aggrieved person is to take recourse to the provisions envisaged under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (For short “the Code”).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment rendered in Shweta Bhadoria (supra) is not correctly decided, as in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2013 MPU Online (S.C.) 4 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is the mandatory duty of the police. Therefore, to ensure that the mandatory duty is carried by the Police, the interference of this Court is essential to secure rule of law. The relevant extract of the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari (supra) read thus:

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold : 120.1 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.

120.2 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.

120.3 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.

120.4 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.

120.5 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.

120.6 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.”

3. In Lalita Kumari (supra) an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171 was referred to. In the said case the issue - whether it is within the powers of the Court to issue a writ directing the police to register an FIR in the case where it is alleged that the accused has made such a speech which is likely to disturb communal harmony was examined. It was held that in case a police officer fails to register an FIR, the modalities to be adopted are set out under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code. But there was no disagreement with the view recorded in the case of Aleque Padamsee (supra).

Apart from the judgment in Aleque Padamsee (supra), the Supreme Court in another judgment reported as Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 2008 (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri) (S.C.) 659 : (2008) 2 SCC 409, categorically held that if a person is aggrieved that his FIR has not been registered by the police or having