JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.1.1992 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4629/90 Rohitashwa Kumar V/s State of Rajasthan and others , dismissing the petition of the appellant-petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to this special appeal as unfolded by the appellant-petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4629/90 are as under : 3. The appellant petitioner is a member of Indian Police Service, who has worked in the capacity of Superintendent of Police in various districts of the State of Rajasthan for about 20 years and claims himself entitled to be posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police. The appellant petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The appellant-petitioner lodged a written complaint with respondent No. 6 on 21.6.1990 under sections 109/192/196/206/217/379/381/411/ 467/468/469/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Scheduled- Castes & Scheduled-Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as "SC/ST Act"). The copies of the said complaint are also alleged to have been sent to respondents No. 4 and 5. A copy of the said complaint was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1. The appellant is alleged to have sent another complaint dated 30.7.1990 to respondent No. 7 for commission of offence under sections 109/177/182/192/193/196/201/202/204/206/211/217/ 379/469/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of SC/ST Act. Copies of the aforesaid complaint as well were sent to the respondents No. 4 and 5. A copy of the same was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-2. The facts and circumstances preceding to the filing of the aforesaid two complaints as have been mentioned by the appellant-petitioner are that Shri R.D. Goyal, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Bikaner is alleged to have reported in writing on 23.3.1985 at 10.30 P.M. to Shri S.B. Panwar, D.I.G., Police, Bikaner, Range, Bikaner that the appellant petitioner (S.P. Bikaner, as he then was) went to his residence on 23.3.1985 at about 9.30 P.M. for courtesy call and stayed there for nearly an hour and during this period the appellant petitioner tried to molest his wife (tried to press her breasts), where-upon Shri R.D. Goyal informed the then Director General of Police Shri Raghu Nath Singh on 25.3.1985 of the aforesaid incident. A copy of the complaint was sent to the Director General of Police by the D.I.G., Bikaner Range, Bikaner. A copy of the complaint was sent to the Director General of Police by the D.I.G., Bikaner Range, Bikaner. On receipt of the said complaint, it appears that the Director General of Police directed Shri V.K. Kaul, the then Special Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Crime, Rajasthan, Jaipur to enquire into the matter and to get a criminal case registered and investigated, if required. The then Director General of Police Shri Raghu Nath Singh recommended to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for immediate transfer of the appellant- petitioner from Bikaner and also to place him under suspension. Shri V.K. Kaul is alleged to have enquired into the matter and on his report a criminal case under Section 354/451 I.P.C. was registered against the appellant at Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner. The appellant petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 1.4.1985. The appellant alleged that initiation of criminal case was a pre-planned conspiracy against him, which was hetched by the senior officers of the Government of Rajasthan in general out of zealousy. It was further alleged that since he belongs to a Scheduled Caste and had a bright future in the department, in order to hamper his further promotion this case was concocted, specially with the connivance of Shri S.B. Panwar, Shri R.D. Goyal, Shri Rajeev Mehrishi, the then Collector, Bikaner and Shri Devi Singh Bhati, the then M.L.A. Kolayat, Bikaner. 4. After suspension, an order was passed against the petitioner and a charge sheet was served on him on 9.5.1985. However, the said departmental enquiry is alleged to have been withdrawn and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 6.4.1989. On the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, it appears that the appellant petitioner was exonerated of the charges and was reinstated on 13.4.1989. However, the said departmental enquiry is alleged to have been withdrawn and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 6.4.1989. On the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, it appears that the appellant petitioner was exonerated of the charges and was reinstated on 13.4.1989. The appellant-petitioner sent some complaint to the then Director General of Police on 19.9.1987 and on the basis of the said complaint he wanted that F.I.R. should be registered against the persons named in the aforesaid complaint, but since no F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the complaint lodged by the appellant petitioner on 19.9.1987, the appellant petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4272/88, Rohitashwa Kumar V/s State of Rajasthan and others , for grant of following reliefs:- (a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to register first information report under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the petition dated 19.9.1987 (Annex.1) submitted by the petitioner ; (b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the investigation of the First Information Report registered on the petition dated 19.9.87 (Annexure-1) by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. The aforesaid writ petition came up for admission before a Division Bench of this Court on 16.11.1988 and the same was not pressed and was dismissed as withdrawn. The order passed on that petition by the Division Bench runs as under:- Mr. Dhanker does not want to press this writ petition. Though he made some submissions on merits but we would not like to make any observation. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition as withdrawn. Sd/ M.B. Sharma, J. Sd. I.S. Israni, J. 6. From a perusal of the reliefs sought in the D.B. Writ Petition, it is abundantly clear that the grievance of the appellant petitioner was that directions should be issued to the respondents to register the F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint lodged by him on 19.9.1987. But after dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner approached this court again in the present S.B. Writ Petition and the main grievance which was agitated before the learned Single Judge was that on the basis of the complaints dated 20.6.90 and 30.7.90, F.I.R. should have been registered by the respondents and since they have failed to perform their statutory duties, the appellant petitioner approached this court in writ jurisdiction. The reliefs sought in the petition are as under : (i) to declare that a situation has arisen in which the Government of State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to register F.I.R. as per Annexure-1 and 2 and hand over the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith; (iii) to direct the respondents to ensure that the investigation in the matter shall be completed within reasonable time fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 to 7, it has been stated that the Challan under section 354/451 I.P.C. has been submitted against the appellant-petitioner and the same is pending. As regards registration of F.I.R. on the basis of the two complaints sent by the appellant petitioner, the stand of the respondents was that a complaint was filed with respondent No. 6 on 21.6.1990 by one Shri Suresh Kumar at Police Station, Ashok Nagar. Since the complaint was based on imagination, the S.H.O., Police Station Ashok Nagar deputed Shri Bhagwan Das, S.I.for verification and the messenger was asked to bring evidence and proof. The complainant did not bring any evidence upto 26.6.1990. The S.H.O., Ashok Nagar vide his letter No. 5066 dated 26.6.1990 sent the original application put up by Shri Suresh Kumar on behalf of Shri Rohitashwa Kumar, appellant-petitioner to c.0., Gandhi Nagar. The C.O., Gandhi Nagar, vide his letter No. 4554 dated 26.11.1990 sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City. Meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City on receipt of copy of the complaint, got the complaint examined and observed that since the allegation/averments pertain to the criminal case registered and departmental proceedings initiated against the complainant as also regarding his service matter, no action on this report is called for. The S.H.O., Ashok Nagar, C.O., Gandhi Nagar, the D.I.G., Jaipur Range and the I.G.P. (Hqrs) were informed accordingly. Regarding the complaint dated 30th July, 1990 submitted by the appellant-petitioner, it has been stated by the respondents that a written application dated 30th July, 1990 was submitted at Police Station, Manak Chowk. The S.H.O., Ashok Nagar, C.O., Gandhi Nagar, the D.I.G., Jaipur Range and the I.G.P. (Hqrs) were informed accordingly. Regarding the complaint dated 30th July, 1990 submitted by the appellant-petitioner, it has been stated by the respondents that a written application dated 30th July, 1990 was submitted at Police Station, Manak Chowk. The Duty Officer read the report and came to the conclusion that the incidents narrated in the report had not taken place in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Manak Chowk and only para 7 of the complaint relating to the theft of a paper by Shri V.K. Kaul on 26.3.1985 from the Office of the Director General of Police Rajasthan was a matter about which a report should have been lodged by the custodian of the paper and not by a third party on the basis of imagination. It has been stated that the facts of the two complaints sent by the appellant petitioner were got enquired into firstly by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and then by Deputy Inspector General, R.A.C. Both the Officers after enquiry came to the conclusion that no offense of theft and forgery has been committed.In these circumstances, it was felt proper that there was no need to register a case on the complaint of Shri Rohitashwa Kumar. The respondents have categorically stated that the enquiry revels that the facts mentioned in the complaint are false and frivolous and no cognizable offence is made out and as such no case was registered. 8. Learned Single Judge after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant- petitioner has preferred this special appeal. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that mainly two questions arose for determination in the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner; (i) whether the report of the Commission of Enquiry of Shri R. Krishna is binding on the court where the challan is pending or (ii) whether the respondent can be directed to register the F.I.R. during the pendency of the challan. On the first question, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the enquiry report is not binding on the criminal court where challan is pending. On the first question, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the enquiry report is not binding on the criminal court where challan is pending. Regarding the second question, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that it was not the stage for issuance of a direction to the respondents to register the F.I.R. during the pendency of challan. Learned Single Judge was of. the view that after conclusion of the trial if the court comes to the conclusion that any document was fabricated or any forgery was committed, then the criminal court itself could order for registration of a case under Section 195(2) and in case such direction is not issued by the criminal court after conclusion of the trial, then it will be open to the petitioner to approach this court in writ jurisdiction and on the aforesaid premises, the writ petition was dismissed. 10. We have heard Shri S.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner and Shri B.P. Agrawal, learned Advocate General with Shri J.K. Singhi for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has mis-directed himself in deciding the controversy involved in the writ petition. He further contended that the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. could not be attracted in the facts of the present case and the learned Single Judge fell in error in holding that it was only after the conclusion of the trial that the petitioner could approach the court, if no complaint was lodged by the court under Section 195(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. After careful perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, without showing any disrespect, we have no hesitation in saying that the learned Single Judge did not decide the controversy in its true perspective. Hence we are also of the opinion that the reliefs sought by the appellant petitioner cannot be granted, inasmuch as no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to register the F.I.R. on the basis of the complaints Annexures 1 and 2 of the writ petition, but the reasons for not granting such reliefs are different which we will deal shortly. In this connection, we would like to incorporate the language of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which runs as under ; "154. Information in cognizable case. In this connection, we would like to incorporate the language of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which runs as under ; "154. Information in cognizable case. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced 'in writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-Section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of costs, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub- section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cogniziable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the Police station in relation to that offence." Section 154, sub-clause (1) provides that every information regarding commission of a cognizable offence may be given either orally or in writing to the officer-in-charge of a Police Station, who shall either reduce in writing himself or get it recorded under his direction and the same shall be entered at the Police Station and shall be signed by the person giving it. Sub-clause (2) of Section 154 Cr. P.C. provides that a copy of the information if recorded under sub-section (1) has to be supplied forthwith to the informant free of cost. Sub-clause (3) of Section 154 Cr. Sub-clause (2) of Section 154 Cr. P.C. provides that a copy of the information if recorded under sub-section (1) has to be supplied forthwith to the informant free of cost. Sub-clause (3) of Section 154 Cr. P.C. provides that in case a person goes to lodge F.I.R. at the police station regarding commission of any cognizable offence and if the Station Officer refuses to register the F.I.R., then the informant or the complainant may send a copy of the information by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned and if the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that such information discloses commission of cognizabie offence, he may either investigate himself or may direct investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him. In the instant case, since the police refused to register the F.I.R. on the basis of the complaints lodged by the appellant petitioner on 21st June, 1990 and 30th July, 1990,the appellant-petitioner availed the remedy available to him under clause (3) of Section 154 Cr. P.C., inasmuch as he has sent the complaints to the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur. According to the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit, it has been clearly mentioned that after receipt of aforesaid two complaints stated above, the facts stated in those complaints were fully enquired into and on enquiry it was found that the facts mentioned therein were false and no cognizable offence was made out and as such no F.I.R. was registered and no investigation was done. The appellant-petitioner has further remedy available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of lodging; a criminal complaint against the respondents before a Magistrate under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and the Magistrate on receipt of such complaint may either enquire into the case himself or still he may direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. The appellant petitioner instead of availing the remedy of filing a criminal complaint against the respondents before the competent criminal court, unnecessarily rushed to this court for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to register the F.I.R. 12. The appellant petitioner instead of availing the remedy of filing a criminal complaint against the respondents before the competent criminal court, unnecessarily rushed to this court for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to register the F.I.R. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that in any view of the matter the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge is erroneous inasmuch as he has refused to grant relief on wholly irrelevant considerations and as such deserves to be set-aside. As we have already observed that the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in refusing to grant relief on the interpretation of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which in our opinion is not relevant at this stage. The order of the learned Single Judge may not be happily worded, but in view of the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to register the F.I.R. and the only course open to the appellant-petitioner is to file a criminal complaint. 13. In the result, the special appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant relief is maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******