JUDGMENT - BARDE V.K., J.:---For the final disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to go into all the details pleaded by the petitioners in the petition and details given by the respondents in their respective affidavits in return. Considering the nature of dispute between petitioners and respondents Nos. 5 and 6, we do not propose to go into all details. The scope of the petition has to be limited to the relief sought by the petitioners and the facts which are relevant only for that purpose are being narrated. We make it clear that we are not expressing our opinion on any other matters which the parties have tried to bring on record. 2. The petitioners have contended that Kustha Seva Mandal is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It is running an Ayurvedic College and Hospital at Sakegaon at a distance of 5 kms. from Bhusawal. The petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of the Trust since beginning while the respondent No. 5 was the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Trust since beginning. The petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1 and is also connected with the said Trust. The respondent No. 6 is the son of the respondent No. 5. There is dispute between petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 regarding the composition of the Governing Council and management of the Trust and that dispute has given rise to the present petition. 3. The petitioners have contended that on 1-3-1998, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 along with many other persons broke open all the locks of the office building and gate of the college premises, entered in the building unauthorisedly and took away registers and records. While doing so, they gave threats to the employees who were present there and created fear in their mind. The petitioner No. 1 filed report regarding this incident at Taluka Police Station, Bhusawal, on 1-3-1998 at about 10-30 p.m. 4. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4-Shri Wagh was the P.S.I. working at the Police Station at that time. He refused to visit the place of incident and he also refused to take any further action in this respect. The petitioners have contended that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are very influential persons. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4-Shri Wagh was the P.S.I. working at the Police Station at that time. He refused to visit the place of incident and he also refused to take any further action in this respect. The petitioners have contended that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are very influential persons. They are political leaders and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 refused to take any action. The Director General of Police was informed on the same day about the incident and he also had directed the P.S.I. respondent No. 4 to take necessary action. It is further contended that the matter was told to Shri H.A. Choudhary, Chairman of Board of Trustees at Jalgaon and Shri Choudhary personally contacted Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, in this respect. The petitioners also approached the Ministers. Even then Police failed to take any steps as per law. It is also contended that there was cash of Rs. 41,000/- in the cupboard in the premises and that also was stolen. 5. It is further contended that on 4-3-1998, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Pohalkar-respondent No. 3 recorded statement of petitioner No. 2 in presence of Sakhdeo, the son-in-law of the petitioner No. 1. However, the Police did not record the correct and true version. It is further contended that the statement was not recorded by the Police as expected to be recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, that means during the course of investigation. 6. The petitioners, therefore, have contended that because of the pressure being brought by respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the Police are not taking proper action with respect to the information lodged at the Police Station on 1-3-1998. Petitioners, therefore, have prayed that the respondents-Police Officers be directed to register the offence on the basis of the information given on 1-3-1998 and the investigation of the matter be handed over to C.I.D. 7. The respondent No. 3- Shri Pohalkar, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhusawal, has filed his affidavit-in-reply. He has stated that the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, on 3-3-1998 entrusted the enquiry of the application given by the petitioner regarding the illegal and forceful possession of the college premises of the Ayurvedic College Sakegaon. He admits that on 1-3-1998, an application was given at Bhusawal Taluka Police Station and preliminary enquiry of the said application was already done by P.S.I. Shri Wagh. He admits that on 1-3-1998, an application was given at Bhusawal Taluka Police Station and preliminary enquiry of the said application was already done by P.S.I. Shri Wagh. He further states that on 4-3-1998, he collected the relevant papers of enquiry, personally went to the house of the petitioner and recorded statement of the petitioner. He has also stated that he has recorded statements of some other persons. Names of those persons are given in his affidavit and he has further stated that from the enquiry which he held, it transpired that the petitioner had given application at the Police Station because his powers were withdrawn by the Chairman-the respondent No. 5. A dispute is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalgaon. P.S.I. Shri Wagh has also obtained the opinion of the Police Prosecutor, Bhusawal, as to whether offence be registered or not, and the Police Prosecutor, Bhusawal, gave the opinion that there was no prima facie case of registering any criminal offence and the parties can get their dispute settled through the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalgaon. 8. P.S.I. Shri Wagh in his affidavit-in-reply has admitted about filing of the report at Police Station on 1-3-1998. He gas given all the details regarding previous disputes between the parties which were reported at the Police Station and the action taken by the Police with respect to those reports. So far as information given on 1-3-1998, P.S.I. Wagh states that on making enquiry with respondent No. 5, he came to know that as the powers of the Secretary- the petitioner No. 1 were withdrawn by the respondent No. 5, the petitioner No. 1 got annoyed and, therefore, he made the application at the Police Station. He made enquiries regarding the application and it revealed that no such incident as alleged had taken place. He was not negligent in carrying out his duty. He has stated that an entry is taken in the Police Station diary accordingly. He had obtained information from Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalgaon, as to who were the members of the Governing Council of Kustha Seva Mandal and he learnt that the respondent No. 5 Shri Madhukarrao Choudhary was the President of the society. He has stated that an entry is taken in the Police Station diary accordingly. He had obtained information from Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalgaon, as to who were the members of the Governing Council of Kustha Seva Mandal and he learnt that the respondent No. 5 Shri Madhukarrao Choudhary was the President of the society. He has further stated that by way of abundant precaution, he sought advice of the Assistant Police Prosecutor, Bhusawal, as to whether any criminal offence prima facie is made out from the application given by the petitioner No. 1, and the Assistant Police Prosecutor gave the opinion that the complainant be directed to get the dispute resolved through the office of Charity Commissioner. It is the contention of Shri Wagh that because of the internal dispute between petitioners and respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the application dated 1-3-1998 was given. A proper enquiry was held with respect to that application and, therefore, no further directions are required from the Court. 9. The respondent No. 5 has not only filed his own affidavit, but has filed affidavits of some other persons and has produced various documents on record to show the nature of dispute. However, it is already made clear that we are not going into all those questions. The point to be decided in this writ petition is whether the Police ought to have registered crime on the basis of information given on 1-3-1998, whether Police have failed to carry out duty and whether the investigation should be handed over to C.I.D. if it is directed to register the crime. 10. Heard Shri R.G. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.B. Bhapkar, learned A.P.P. for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8; Shri V.G. Gangapurwala, learned Counsel for respondents No. 4 and Shri A.H. Kapadia, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 5 and 6. 11. The copy of report made at Police Station on 1-3-1998 by the petitioner No. 1 is at Exhibit C on page No. 18. In this report, it is mentioned that 16 persons named in the report and other unknown 150 persons had entered in the premises of the college at 6 p.m. They were armed with various weapons, and they broke open locks. They created an atmosphere of terror amongst the employees who were present there. In this report, it is mentioned that 16 persons named in the report and other unknown 150 persons had entered in the premises of the college at 6 p.m. They were armed with various weapons, and they broke open locks. They created an atmosphere of terror amongst the employees who were present there. They collected important documents vouchers, put those in a Jeep and took away all those papers. He further expressed the apprehension that those persons who took away the documents were likely to score out portion of the documents or to destroy those documents or are likely to create forged or false documents. Therefore, it was further prayed that immediate action be taken to recover the documents taken away by the persons named in the report and the investigation of the crime be carried out. 12. On reading this report filed at the Police Station, it will be very clear that specific allegations are made with respect to the persons named in the report which disclose cognizable offences. Whether the allegations are false or true is not the questions to be considered at this stage. Whether the report made at the Police Station does discloses any cognizable offence is the question and there cannot be two opinions that this report dated 1-3-1998 filed at the Police Station does disclose cognizable offences. It is really deplorable that the officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Pohalkar in his affidavit-in-reply states that it was an application when it clearly indicates that it was a report or information regarding a cognizable offence. Shri Pohalkar is exhibiting his ignorance or disregard. The officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police should not have tried to play on words in this way when it was a report lodged regarding the cognizable offence. He should not have called it as an application. In an attempt to hide his incompetency and inaction, he is calling that information as an application and is further contending that he held enquiry with respect to that application. 13. Same is the position of P.S.I. Wagh. The Police Station Officer, that too of the rank of P.S.I. must understand immediately on receiving an information at the Police Station whether it discloses any cognizable offence or not. 13. Same is the position of P.S.I. Wagh. The Police Station Officer, that too of the rank of P.S.I. must understand immediately on receiving an information at the Police Station whether it discloses any cognizable offence or not. All his stand that he made enquiry, he found that there were disputes between the parties, he contacted the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner and he took advice the of Assistant Police Prosecutor, is meaningless. 14. The circumstances stated by the Shri Wagh with respect to previous applications made by the parties at the Police Station are altogether irrelevant for taking the decision as to whether a cognizable offence should be registered or not on the basis of the information given at the Police Station on 1-3-1998 by the petitioner No. 1. The Police Station Officer may have valuable information in his possession with respect to the dispute between the parties and he may have a doubt as to whether allegations made in the information are true or false, but that information or that doubt cannot be made a ground for not registering the offence when the information lodged discloses a cognizable offence. The law must take its own course in the prescribed manner. The Police Station Officer cannot avoid his responsibility registering the crime merely on the basis of some other information he is having. 15. After registration of the crime on the basis of information received, the P.S.I. may use his information to decide whether further investigation is necessary as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code. But in that case also, the P.S.I. will have to follow the provisions enunciated in section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code. 16. It is very clear from the provisions of section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code that when any information is received at the Police Station disclosing a cognizable offence, then Police must register the crime and then proceed further as per the other provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. The police cannot avoid registration of crime. 17. The non-registration of crime will not serve the purpose of anybody. If the informant has given false information, then after registration of the crime, the police can take proper action against him as per law for giving false information. The police cannot avoid registration of crime. 17. The non-registration of crime will not serve the purpose of anybody. If the informant has given false information, then after registration of the crime, the police can take proper action against him as per law for giving false information. Even those persons against whom false allegations are made in the information given, they also can take proper action against informant for giving false information. But whether the information given is false or true, that can be established only after proper investigation of the crime registered on the basis of information given by the informant. Here both-Shri Pohalkar, Dy.S.P. and Shri Wagh P.S.I. have tried to place card before the horse by branding the information given by the petitioner No. 1 as false and by refusing to register the crime. 18. If Shri Pohalkar, Dy.S.P. or the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, had given proper instructions as per provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, to the P.S.O. Bhusawal, Taluka Police Station to register the crime the matter would not have come to the Court. All these Police Officers have failed to carry out their duty. 19. To know the scope of sections 154 and 157 of Criminal Procedure Code, we can very well refer to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the matter of (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal)1, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604. Their Lordships in para No. 32 have observed. "It is, therefore, manifestly clear that 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) of the Code, the said Police Officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information." In paragraph No. 35, Their Lordships of the Apex Court have fully explained the provisions of section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant portion reads as follows:- "Section 157(1) requires an officer-in-charge of a Police Station who 'from information received or otherwise' has reason to suspect the commission of an offence-that is a cognizable offence—which he is empowered to investigate under section 156, to forthwith send a report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and to either proceed in person or depute any one of his Subordinate Officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary, to take the measures for discovery and arrest of the offender. This provision is qualified by a proviso which is in two parts (a) and (b). As per Clause (a) the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station need not proceed in person or depute a Subordinate Officer to make an investigation on the spot if the information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature. According to Clause (b), if it appears to the Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station that there is no sufficient ground for entering in an investigation, he shall not investigate the case, sub-section (2) of section 157 demands that in each of the cases mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 157, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station must state in his report, required to be forwarded to Magistrate his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of sub-section (1) and when the Police Officer decides not to investigate the case for the reasons mentioned in clause (b) of the proviso, he in addition to his report to the Magistrate, must 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 the case to be investigated." 20. Thus, it is very clear that it was the duty of the P.S.I. Shri Wagh who was then officer-in-charge of Bhusawal Taluka Police Station to register the crime on the basis of information received from the petitioner No. 1 and then he could have taken the steps as contemplated under section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code, but he failed to carry out his duty. Neither the Dy. S.P. Shri Pohalkar nor the S.P. Jalgaon, gave him timely proper advice for the reasons best known to them. 21. The learned A.P.P. Shri Bhapkar has produced on record a letter written by S.P., Jalgaon, to P.S.I., Bhusawal Taluka Police Station dated 24-4-1998 which indicates that the Additional D.I.G. of Police (C.I.D.), Pune had issued directions on 26/30-3-1998 to handover the investigation of crime of dacoity which has taken place at Kustha Seva Mandal on 1-3-1998 and Shri Bhapkar therefore has contended that already the investigation is handed over to C.I.D. 22. However, it has to be noted that it is nowhere on record that any crime is registered on the basis of the information given by the petitioner No. 1 on 1-3-1998 at Taluka Police Station, Bhusawal. So we give direction to the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 to register the crime on the basis of information given by the petitioner No. 1 on 1-3-1998. Further direction for investigation by C.I.D. is not necessary because already higher authorities have taken that decision. We would like to make it clear that considering the circumstances and the manner in which the Jalgaon Police have handled this matter after filing of the information on 1-3-1998, the investigation must be in the hands of C.I.D. and it should be carried out by a competent officer of C.I.D. We also direct that the concerned officer investigating this crime to investigate as to what was the real reason for not registering the crime immediately on receiving the information and to make a report to the higher authorities for taking proper action against those who have failed to carry out their duty as per the provisions of section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code. With these directions, Rule made absolute. Order accordingly. -----