ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

^^¼v½ ;g fd] ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj] ;kfpdkdrkZ ds }kjk dh xbZ f'kdk;r dh fu"i{k tkap dh tkdj vfHk;qDrx.k ds f[kykQ vijk/k iathc) fd, tkus gsrq vukosndx.k dks funZsf'kr djus dh d`ik dh tk;sA
¼c½ ;g fd] vU; vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ;kfpdk dh izd`fr ds vuqlkj tks mfpr le>s og Hkh ;kfpdkdrkZ dks fnyk;s tksu dh d`ik dh tkosA^^

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that in spite of complaint made by petitioner pointing out the commission of cognizable offence no FIR has been registered.

3. The moot question for consideration is as to whether this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India can direct the Police Authority to register the FIR or not?

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 has held as under :-

“7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] and reiterated in Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] ,Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] , we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] . The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 229 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 684 : AIR 2006 SC 3376]. The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303], Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] and Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310]. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 with WP (C) No. 530 of 2002 and WP (C) No. 221 of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid writ petitions.

8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:

(1) If any person is aggriev