The main legal point is the discretion of a police officer in registering a case upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence.

ORDER :

B.N. Agarwal, J.

One of the questions which has been posed in this writ petition is as to whether, upon receipt of information by an officer in charge of the police station disclosing cognizable offence, it is imperative for him/her to register a case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or a discretion lies with him/her to make some sort of preliminary enquiry before registering the same.

2. In support of his submission, Mr S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677 and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 .

3. Mr Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, on the other hand, submitted that an officer in charge of the police station is not obliged under law, upon receipt of information disclosing cognizable offence, to register a case but a discretion lies with him/her in appropriate cases to hold some sort of preliminary enquiry in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the accusations made in the report.

4. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 , Sevi v. State of T.N., 1981 Supp SCC 43 , Shashikant v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 630 , and Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Admn., (2007) 10 SCC 69 , apart from certain observations made in a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 221

5. In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court, referred to above, we feel that it is necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

6. Let this petition be placed before the Hon?ble Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders to list the case before a larger Bench.

7. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, we feel that it would be expedient to hear this petition at an early date.