ORDER

1. Petitioners have filed this present writ petition making following prayers:-

7.1 To call for entire record from the office of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 relating to steps taken and investigation conducted in relation to the written complaint submitted by the petitioners (Annexure P/6)

7.2. To direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to take appropriate action on the written complaint submitted by the petitioners (Annexure P/6) and register FIR against accused Shridhar Ingle S/o Shri D. S. Ingle R/o C-26, New Jail Road, Indore Byepass, Bhopal (M.P.) while keeping in view his previous conduct as was appreciated by this Hon’ble Court in MCrC No. 11099/2016 (Annexure P/15).

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that no action has been taken by respondent No.3 on his complaint/information given regarding commission of offence by one Shridhar Engle. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that Shridhar Engle is a habitual offender and he is doing forgery and cheating and, therefore, offences ought to have been registered by respondent No.3 against him.

3. Number of petitions are filed before High Court as Police does not take any decision on a complaint made by a party regarding economic offences. In all such petitions, prayer is made for lodging of First Information Report against the accused persons or prayer is made to decide the complaint/representation preferred by the petitioners before concerned police station or by Superintendent of Police. This Court in matter of Dharmendra Sonkar v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 716, Shweta Bhadauria v. State of M.P. and others [2017 (1) MPJR 247], Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dnage and others [(2016) 6 SCC 277], has held that in cases, where First Information Report is not registered at Police Station, then complainant has an alternate remedy under sections 154 (3), 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to avail alternative remedy under sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in exceptions enumerated in case of Whirphool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others-reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 can file a writ petition before High Court.

4. In view of the aforesaid law, this Court does not deem fit to exercise jurisdiction to give direction to police authorities to register First Information Report as petitioners have not demonstrated that their case falls in exception laid down in case of Whirphool Corporation (supra).

5. Chapter XII-section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fixes duty on concerned police officer to examine the complaint and form opinion whether cognizable offence is made out or not. If cognizable offence is made out then he is duty bound to register First Information Report. Otherwise, he can close the complaint if no offence is made out or enter the information as non cognizable offence under section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 has specifically laid down following directions for action to be taken on receipt of complaint:-

Conclusion/Directions :

111.“i) 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.

ii) 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.

iii) 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.

iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of