The reasonableness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case, and the police have an obligation to register a case if the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned P.P. appearing for the State.

Mr. Nabadwip Jamatia, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Unakoti Tripura and Mr. Chabir Ahamed, Officer-in-Charge of Kailashahar Police Station appeared in person before in terms of the order dated 07.05.2015.

2. On demonstrating anxiety Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has submitted that from the reply filed by the State it transpires that the complaint by the petitioner was not considered for registration of the case, even though the complaint discloses a clear-cut cognizable offence. He has referred to the communication dated 27.10.2014, Annexure-A to the said reply filed by the State on 10.12.2014, addressed to the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Crime) which reflects that after the scrutiny of the audit reports enclosed with the complaint, it was not clear that if the conduct of the accused is criminal in nature or not and therefore, a request was made for referring the matter to the Vigilance Department for making further inquiry. When this Court asked Mr. Jamatia, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Unakoti Tripura why the complaint lodged by Mr. Birajit Sinha, the petitioner herein was not registered as a specific case, he has replied that the persons named in that complaint were not found involved in any culpable act in the inquiry. But the complaint filed by Dr. Sandeep N. Mahatme, the Mission Director, National Health Mission is specific about the misappropriation of the public fund. Accordingly, on the basis of that information, Kailashahar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2015 under Sections 409/120B/420 of the I.P.C. along with Section 13(2) and 13(i) (a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. Mr. Jamatia has further submitted that as this court has been examining the matter, they preferred not to register any case on that complaint. He has categorically contended that the complaint of the petitioner even does not clearly reveal commission of cognizable offence. Allegations are extremely vague and as such, immediately no case was registered. After the complaint was received, the information, so far material in the context, has been recorded in the General Diary (GD) and thereafter, a preliminary inquiry was taken up. In the midst of that inquiry, this petition had been filed and before culmination, the case has been registered for sake of the expeditious investigation on the basis of the specific information of cognizable offence by the Mission Director.

3. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has submitted further that the police has not conducted inquiry in accordance with the provisions of law. If on the basis of any information a preliminary inquiry is taken up, then on the culmination of that inquiry it has to be decided whether or not that a specific case be registered but no law authorizes registration of a case on the basis of the subsequent complaint or information in respect of the same offence or its transaction. He has further submitted that the audit reports which were enclosed with the complaint of the petitioner provided the basis of the information by the Mission Director. Therefore, it does not suit in the mouth of the police officers to say that the Mission Director revealed something new forming disclosure of the cognizable offence.

4. In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the apex court has categorically held that:

73. The legislature has consciously used the expression "information" in Section 154(1) of the Code as against the expression used in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) where the expression used for arresting a person without warrant is "reasonable complaint" or "credible information." The expression under Section 154(1) of the Code is not qualified by the prefix "reasonable" or "c