JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J. 1. The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the relief in the nature of a direction to the fourth Respondent to register an FIR. in terms of the complaint filed by him in this proceeding as Annexure P-3 and as a consequence thereof to conduct re-investigation by entrusting the same to some other competent Police Officer under the supervision of a Senior Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector-General of Police after divesting the fourth Respondent from the case and also after declaring null and void investigation, if any, conducted by the fourth Respondent in the matter. 2. The Petitioner claims himself to be a citizen of India and asserts rights in him to seek for the relief, prayed for. In justification of the claim, he also states that he was working as press daftry in the Printing and Stationery Department of the State Government with effect from November, 1986 and thereafter is working as Book-Binder with effect from July 1991. Though the Petitioner also claims that there were no adverse entries before the joining of the third Respondent in office and the third Respondent has been vindictive towards the Petitioner and other employees without any reason and has been issuing adverse A.C.Rs. in a routine and mechanical manner every year. It is also stated that when the Petitioner made a verbal request to the third Respondent to decide his representation made against ACRs, instead of complying with the request the third Respondent passed an order suspending him by invoking the powers under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules by an order dated 3.11.1997 and in the said order the third Respondent fixed the headquarter during the suspension period as H.P. Government Press (B-Block), Shimla-5, with a further stipulation that the Petitioner should not leave the headquarter without obtaining the prior permission of the head of the office. It is also claimed for the Petitioner that when in the evening the Petitioner sought for permission to leave for home, the third Respondent directed the Petitioner to spend the night in the Government Press and his request for a guilt was also turned down with a specific direction to the Chowkidar not to allow the Petitioner to leave the Press premises, as a consequence of which the Petitioner claims to have been compelled to sleep in the cold for the night with just a pullover on and caught cold the first night itself. The same treatment was said to have been meted out to him every day till November 6, 1997 when his relatives lodged a criminal complaint with Police Station, Dhalli and it is the Sub-Inspector concerned who finally traced and rescued the Petitioner from the alleged illegal confinement by the third Respondent in the Government Press premises. Thereupon, it is also stated that the Petitioner approached the fourth Respondent on 8.11.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. with a complaint in respect of the aforesaid alleged illegal confinement and attempt to murder but the fourth Respondent refused to register any FIR or complaint against the third Respondent and only placed the complaint on the record of case diary. The attempts of the Petitioner to get himself medically examined, it is claimed, could not succeed in the absence of any FIR. According to the Petitioner, the fourth Respondent called the Petitioner to the Police Station and requested him to withdraw his claim since he was unacle to take action against the Senior Himachal Administrative Service Officer (Respondent No. 3) and when he refused to withdraw the complaint the fourth Respondent forced him to sign a statement, which was pre-written and not read over to the Petitioner also. On the above factual averments, apart from alleging that Respondents 3 and 4 are hand in glove with each other and the fourth Respondent is exhibiting inimical attitude with no intention to make any impartial investigation, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court praying for the reliefs noticed supra. Notice was ordered to the Respondents, as a consequence of which the second Respondent has filed a reply and Respondents No. 1 and also filed separate replies. The third Respondent also filed a separate reply. 3. Notice was ordered to the Respondents, as a consequence of which the second Respondent has filed a reply and Respondents No. 1 and also filed separate replies. The third Respondent also filed a separate reply. 3. So far as the third Respondent is concerned, he has meticulously explained the details as to how even prior to his joining the position, the Petitioner came to the adverse notice of the superiors resulting in adverse ACRs. His action in sending communications with abusive and intemperate language exhibit indiscipline, unbecoming of a public servant and the need arose for placing him under suspension by the order dated 3.11.1997. While denying the allegation of the Petitioner that he was confined or detained in B-Block of the Government Press even after the working hours and forced to stay even during night, it has been stated that the headquarters has been fixed in a routine manner in the prescribed form, which has relevance only for the office hours and such fixation became necessary for the reason that the actual day to day printing work is carried on in A-Block, B-Block being merely Administrative Office so as to prevent him in entering A-Block and create any mischief or obstruct work in A-Block. It was also stated by the third Respondent that the alleged complaint given to the police about the whereabouts of the Petitioner was a manipulated one and when the police came, he was found loitering as a free man and the Chowkidar as also the Home-Guard personnel have also denied the fact that the Petitioner ever remained in the Press building either in 'A' or 'B' Block on the days in question, as alleged by him. The third Respondent denied that he had at any time issued orders for the confinement of the Petitioner in the Press B-Block and has stated that wild allegations have been made to harm, humiliate, harass as well as defame the third Respondent with mala fide intention in view the administrative actions that the third Respondent was constrained to take to maintain discipline in the officer. Necessary supporting materials in support of such claims have also been filed. Necessary supporting materials in support of such claims have also been filed. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their separate replies while pointing out that if the Petitioner has really any grievance against the 4th Respondent about the non-registration of the FIR, he had a remedy to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not only he has failed to do so, has deliberately approached this Court to malign the authorities, it has also been stated that when the Sub-Inspector of Police went to the Press, he was found freely loitering near the staircase in the Press premises outside 'B' Block, where he was alleged to have been wrongfully confined and that his present move is a mala fide one to malign the superior authorities with an ulterior motive. It is also stated that a preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 10.11.1997 completely refutes the allegation made in the written complaint submitted by the Petitioner on 8.11.1997 and there are no merits in the grievance sought to be made out. The Superintendent of Police also affirmed that the replies of Respondents No. 1 and 4 were drafted and prepared under his instructions and correctness of the materials stated therein. 4. In the reply of the fourth Respondent separately filed, the factual details set out in the reply of the 1st Respondent are reiterated and in addition thereto, it is stated that on 8.11.1997 when the Petitioner submitted a written complaint an entry was made in Register No. 5-A (Daily receipt and Despatch Register) and inasmuch as the mala fide move and intention of the Petitioner was clear from the earlier incidents which came to light when his relatives filed a false and fabricated complaint, it became necessary for the 4th Respondent to make a preliminary inquiry and the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector on 10.11.1997 disclosed that the allegation made by the Petitioner in the complaint dated 8.11.1997 was incorrect and baseless. The allegation of the Petitioner that the Station House Officer called him and compelled him to withdraw the complaint is denied by also stating that the fourth Respondent does not know the third Respondent at any time and that he never called the Petitioner or threatened him. The other Respondents also submitted their supporting material in support of the averments made. 5. The other Respondents also submitted their supporting material in support of the averments made. 5. The writ Petitioner filed a rejoinder merely reiterating his earlier stand. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner while relying upon the decisions reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 604 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. and 1993(3) Crimes 577 Lalji Maurya v. Srate, forcefully contended that the Station House Officer had no option but to register the FIR and proceed in accordance with law when a written complaint is given as in this case and that, therefore, the investigation, if any, he had made even before the registering of such FIR is illegal and liable to be set aside and as a consequence thereof a direction requires to be issued to the Respondents not only to register the FIR but have the matter re-investigated with higher officers in the hierarchy, as claimed by the Petitioner. The learned Advocate-General appeared for the Respondents other than Respondent No. 3, who has been represented by Mr. M.S. Chandel. The learned Advocate General apart from bringing to our notice the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, duties and obligations of the authorities and the factual background which patently exposed the ulterior motives and object of the Petitioner for merely harass the higher authorises, contended that there are no merits in the grievance now made and that it is not as though the Petitioner is without any alternate remedy and the Petitioner must be if at all relegated to such remedies otherwise available by rejecting this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the third Respondent contended that the entire episode is an invented one and that the object of the Petitioner is to merely harass and humiliate the third Respondent, and there is no truth or merit or justice in the alleged grievance attempted to be made before this Court. While placing reliance upon the decision reported in 1971 Cri.L.J. 523 : AIR 1971 S.C. 520 P. Sirajuddin, etc. While placing reliance upon the decision reported in 1971 Cri.L.J. 523 : AIR 1971 S.C. 520 P. Sirajuddin, etc. v. State of Madras, etc., the learned Counsel contended that there is nothing wrong in a preliminary inquiry being made and that such preliminary inquiry is absolutely necessary also in a given case like this before lodging any FIR and that it is not as though irrespective of the suspicious nature of the allegations or the basic and apparent infirmities from which it suffered that a complaint made against any one has to be only registered by lodging the FIR with no opportunity to the authority concerned to verify about the veracity of the claim made before proceeding further in the matter. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In AIR 1992 S.C. 604, the learned Judges were concerned with an appeal filed by the State of Haryana assailing the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the entire proceedings inclusive of the registration of the First Information Report with a direction to pay the costs to the writ Petitioner. In the context of such a challenge to an investigation commenced on the basis of an FIR, the apex Court analysed the scope of Section 154(1) and observed that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence and consequently, if any, information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) the said police officer has no other option but to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information and commence investigation when the Police Officer have reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence as required by Section 157(1) and that he should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case as contemplated under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1). Their Lordships also further observed that such satisfaction to be arrived at must be on the materials, which were placed before them at that stage, namely, the first information together with the documents, if any, enclosed On a careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court and also the propositions laid down by their Lordships, we are of the view that apart from the fact that some of the observations as found made therein came to be made actually in the context of a satisfaction arrived at by the Station House Officer and a challenge made to such satisfaction. The proposition laid down therein cannot be said to support the extreme stand and claim now made by the Petitioner in this case. For our part, from the said judgment, we cannot find anything which precludes or disables the Station House Officer before whom a complaint is made of an alleged cognizable offence to take into consideration the materials already in his possession with reference to the complainant or of any evil design or motive involved in such complainant to lay a false complaint against any one and in that context to get him satisfied also by any preliminary inquiry into the matter. 7. The reliance placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1993 (3) Crimes 577, for the Petitioner is also untenable. The learned Single Judge in that case observed that it is the statutory duty of police to lodge the FIR when an information of a cognizable offence is given and police cannot investigate a case unless FIR is lodged. The said decision deals with an investigation being made without lodging an FIR and the consequence of such an investigation but does not concern itself with a complaint of the nature which is under our consideration and the need or right of the Station House Officer to verify about the veracity of the complaint by making a preliminary inquiry. Even otherwise, we are unable to subscribe to such a wide proposition as has been made in the said decision of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. 8. That how we view should be the proper approach is fortified by a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 520 P. Sirajuddin etc. v. The State of Madras, etc.. 8. That how we view should be the proper approach is fortified by a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 520 P. Sirajuddin etc. v. The State of Madras, etc.. That was a case wherein serious allegations of mis-demeanour and acts of dishonesty have been made in a complaint against a public servant of considerable status and the police on such complaint made by the Director of Vigilance registered an FIR and proceeded to investigate into the matter involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In that context, the Court observed as follows: Before a public servant, whatever be his. status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary inquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the Appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. Viewed in this context, if the facts and circumstances of the case placed before us are considered, we have no hesitation to place on record that the writ Petitioner has been so reckless not only in his dealing with his superiors or the way in which he chose to deal with the police authorities but also in making baseless and reckless allegations before this Court also by swearing to an irresponsible affidavit. In the teeth of the materials placed on record, the Petitioner could not be considered to have spoken the truth in the affidavit filed in this Court when he asserted that there were no adverse remarks against him before the third Respondent joined the office in question. The entire episode, as disclosed from the materials before us, shows that the writ Petitioner is desperate in harming the authorities, particularly, the third Respondent and in that process he was prepared to go to any extent, unmindful of his reckless attitude. The entire episode, as disclosed from the materials before us, shows that the writ Petitioner is desperate in harming the authorities, particularly, the third Respondent and in that process he was prepared to go to any extent, unmindful of his reckless attitude. On facts it is clear that the Station House Officer was already alive to some details with reference to the grievance espoused in the complaint presented by the Petitioner on 8.11.1997, since on an earlier occasion when some complaint of alleged illegal confinement has been made, the police found him to be loitering as a free man in the Press compound without any such confinement and if the very same incident is made the subject-matter of any one more complaint by further innovation, nothing precludes the police to have a preliminary inquiry in the matter to find out the genuineness or bona fides on the part of the complainant and the truth in the allegation made by him, particularly, when it involved the Petitioner's superiors in the administrative hierarchy, against whom he has already exhibited ill-will. 9. Consequently, we are of the view that it is not as though whenever any complaint is made the law is to be set in motion only by registering the FIR irrespective of inherently dubious nature of the complaint or lack of genuiness or bona fides in the allegations found made in the complaint. For the same reason, we could not also hold that the Officer concerned has no right to, leave alone his obligation to verify about the veracity or credibility of the allegation made in a complaint before proceeding in the matter further even to register the FIR despite the fact that on the face of it the complaint bristles with suspicion and lack of bona fides. The enforcement of law could not be allowed to be reduced to such absurdities and the officer concerned cannot be denied even the right of getting himself satisfied by means of any preliminary inquiry about the grievance made in a complaint before proceeding further in the matter and lodging the FIR. The enforcement of law could not be allowed to be reduced to such absurdities and the officer concerned cannot be denied even the right of getting himself satisfied by means of any preliminary inquiry about the grievance made in a complaint before proceeding further in the matter and lodging the FIR. The insertion of Sub-section (3) in Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would also in our view postulates the existence of such liberties with the Station House Officer and only as a consequence whereof the Parliament thought fit to provide a remedy also to a person aggrieved by such refusal on the part of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station by providing a remedy to approach the Superintendent of Police concerned to vindicate his grievance. The fact that he has not chosen to do so and has rushed to this Court with reckless allegations would go to expose the ulterior motive and total lack of bona fides in the move of the Petitioner. 10. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit whatsoever in the claim of the writ Petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition shall not stand in the way of the Petitioner vindicating his remedies, if any, otherwise available to him in law.