JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J.—Petitioner Kishori Lal Bhardwaj, a resident of village Parag, Tehsil and District Solan, came to this Court in the month of September, 1991 for redress by instituting the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, 2. Bereft of unnecessary details the grievance of the petitioner, essentially, is that First Information Report Nos. 178 of 1990, 12 and 18 of 1991 made by him at Police Station, Solan, remained unattended by the police authorities. Likewise, the complaints of which copies have been appended as Annexures-PD and PI to the petition, made in writing, to the Addl. Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Solan, met the same fate, What Kishori Lal prays in the present petition is that respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to investigate into the offences disclosed in the aforesaid First Information Reports and complaints and proceed, thereafter, in accordance with law by presenting challans in respect thereof in the appropriate Courts. 3. On September 23, 1991 this Court directed issue of notice to the respondents of the petition of which the first two are the Director General of Police, H P. and the Superintendent of Police, Solan, The other respondents are private persons against whom some allegations have been made by the petitioner. 4. On being served with notices aforesaid a reply has been filed on behalf of the first two respondents which has been sworn by the Superintendent of Police, Solan The private respondents have also filed a common reply and have appeared through a Counsel. In substance, what has been stated on behalf of the first two respondents is that each one of these reports was looked into and it was found that in respect of some of them no action was called for. Also, that in respect of one of them, namely, F. I. R. No. 178 of 1990 a chailan has been presented in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. 5. Basically, in respect of the offences regarding which no action is proposed to be taken by the Police, the stand taken is that they did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The grievance of the petitioner, as ably put forward on his behalf by Shri D. D. Sood, his Counsel, is that the petitioner has remained unaware of the action taken on the various reports. The grievance of the petitioner, as ably put forward on his behalf by Shri D. D. Sood, his Counsel, is that the petitioner has remained unaware of the action taken on the various reports. Also, that no information has yet been received by the petitioner from any Court of law even in respect of the challan said to have been forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the grievance made in the First Information Report No. 178. 6. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter, "the Code") contains the provisions relating to information of commission of offences to the police and its power to investigate them. Under section 155 (I), when information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) of section 155 says that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Sub-section (3) then says i any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. 7. When information in respect of a cognizable offence is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station he is empowered to investigate it without obtaining any orders of a Magistrate, This is contemplated by section 156. Section 157 then says that if the officer-in-charge of a police station gets information or comes to know otherwise that there is reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence he is to forthwith send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and then get the matter investigated. Section 157 then says that if the officer-in-charge of a police station gets information or comes to know otherwise that there is reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence he is to forthwith send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and then get the matter investigated. Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to section 157 (1) say that when information about commission of any such offence is given against a person by name and the casa is not of a serious nature, the officer-in-charge of a police station need not proceed in person to investigate it and if it appears that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case However, under sub-section (2) of section 157, a duty is cast on the officer-in-charge of a police station, in cases referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), to disclose reasons in his report for not proceeding to make the investigation and also to forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated. 8. A clear distinction appears in these provisions between offences of cognizable and non-cognizable nature. There is a statutory obligation cask upon the police to investigate a cognizable offence except in those cases which fall under the two clauses of the proviso to section 157. There is also statutory duty cast upon the officer-in-charge of the police station to make a report to the Magistrate, on receiving information or on having reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Chapter. 9. In contrast, where a report made to an officer-in-charge of a police station relates to the commission of a non-cognizable offence the obligation, after entering or causing the substance of the information to be entered in a prescribed book, is to refer the informant to the Magistrate’. There is a fetter on the power of a police officer in investigating into a non-cognizable case without obtaining orders from the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the same for trial. There is a fetter on the power of a police officer in investigating into a non-cognizable case without obtaining orders from the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the same for trial. The importance of the requirement of referring the informant to the Magistrate in such a case can hardly be over emphasised. 10. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another9 AIR 1985 SC 1285, where First Information Report made to the police related to a cognizable offence, it was observed (in paragraph 3) that: “...when an informant lodges the First Information Report with the officer-in charge of a police station, he does not fade away with the lodging of the First Information Report. He is very much concerned with what action is initiated by the officer-in-charge of the police station on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by him.,." The same consideration merits insistence even in a case relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence. It is true that the legislature did not require investigation by the police into a report disclosing commission of a non-cognizable offence except when so directed by the Magistrate having power to try such a case or commit the same for trial, vet, the fact that it requires the police to refer the informant to the Magistrate", in such a case presupposes that the informant should be given a clear indication that he may, if he so likes, approach the Magistrate for an order for investigation into the offence disclosed in the report, This can only be ensured if the officer-in-charge of the police station or someone functioning under his direction is charged with the duty of making it known to the informant that he should approach the Magistrate concerned for appropriate orders. It would be reasonable to expect performance of a public duty of this nature, in writing, so that it is possible for a Court of law to which a complaint is made about inaction on the part of the police or for appropriate functionaries of the police itself or the Magistrate incharge of a district to ascertain whether the statutory duty cast under section 155 (1) in this respect upon the officer-in-charge of the police station has been performed or not. 11. 11. The Code does not provide for any method in which the officer-in-charge of a police station is to refer the informant to a Magistrate. There is nothing in this respect contained even in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh) specifically. What is, however, to be found in it is contained in paragraph 24.3, Chapter XXIV, which says; "Where the information relates to a non-cognizable offence, it shall be briefly but intelligibly recorded in the station diary, shall be signed, sealed or marked by the person making it on both foil and counterfoil, and all particulars required by section 44 of Act V of 18^1 shall also be noted. A copy of the entry in the diary made by the carbon copying process and signed and sealed with the station seal by the recording officer, shall be made over to the informant who shall be referred to the Magistrate in accordance with section 155 Code of Criminal Procedure.” (emphasis our) Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No. 5 of 1861) says that: "It shall be the duty of every officer-in-charge of a police station to keep a general diary in such form as shall, from time to time, be prescribed by the State Government and to record therein all complaints and charges preferred, the names of all persons arrested, the names of the complainants, the offences charged against them, the weapons or property that shall have been taken from their possession or otherwise, and the names of the witnesses who shall have been examined. The Magistrate of the district shall be at liberty to call for and inspect such diary." 12. The intendment of the Legislature is clear in providing for the informant to be referred to a Magistrate under section 155 (1). The intention is that a person making a report about commission of a non-cognizable offence to the police should not remain in doubt about the possible action which police can take in such matters. The intendment of the Legislature is clear in providing for the informant to be referred to a Magistrate under section 155 (1). The intention is that a person making a report about commission of a non-cognizable offence to the police should not remain in doubt about the possible action which police can take in such matters. He is to be told that he must approach the Magistrate concerned if he wishes investigation into the matter Also, that it is only after receipt of an order from such a Magistrate that the police would be able to investigate into the alleged offence Since, as contemplated by paragraph 24.3, a copy of the entry is to be made available to the informant, it should not be too much to expect that there should be some writing at the foot of the report maintained in terms of paragraph 24.3 (and its carbon copy) that the allegations and the facts contained in the information given to the police only reveal commission of a non-cognizable offence; that the informant must approach the Magistrate concerned for appropriate orders in case he wishes the matter to be investigated by the police and further that investigation can only be undertaken by the police after it receives an order to that effect from the Magistrate. 13. While locking for a meaning to be given to the phrase refer’ the informant to the Magistrate; we may notice the meaning given to the word ‘refer in the Webbers Third New International Dictionary (Volume II) page 1907. One of the meanings given to that word is “to send or direct for aid", while another meaning is “to have recourse : apply". We have to fall back upon these meanings to come to the conclusion that the officer-in-charge of the police station who records the information relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence must direct the informant to approach or apply to the Magistrate concerned for appropriate orders in the matter. 14. What should happen where the information given to the police, ex-facie shows commission of a cognizable offence. That is amply provided for in section 157 of the Code. 14. What should happen where the information given to the police, ex-facie shows commission of a cognizable offence. That is amply provided for in section 157 of the Code. Where, on a preliminary fact finding enquiry officer-in-charge of the police station or the subordinate to whom he makes over the case, comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient around for entering on investigation, he shall not investigate it but notify the informant that he will not do so or cause the case to be investigated as required by section 157 (2) of the Code. 15 On the facts of the present case, we feel, no interference is necessary in view of the stand taken in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the first two respondents, though we would like to mention it specifically in this order that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate even now for appropriate orders irrespective of the lapse of time between now and the dates when reports were made by the petitioner to the police. We are not inclined to accept the prayer made by Shri G. D. Verma on behalf of respondents 3 to 6 that this liberty should be made subject to the right of those respondents to raise an objection about limitation in those matters where the grievance may have been barred by time, as envisaged by section 468 of the Code. We feel that the failure of the police to refer the petitioner-informant to the Magistrate in accordance with law should not visit the petitioner with any penalty in this respect. 16. The petition shall stand disposed of finally, as aforesaid, but parties are left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.