JUDGMENT - A.S. BAGGA, J.:---Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 2. This petition seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register a F.I.R. on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioner orally on 28-4-2001 and in writing on 23-5-2001. 3. The petitioner states that his son, Sheikh Alishan, was working as a Driver in the Tipper truck with one Quader Seth. Sheikh Alishan, the son of the petitioner, did not return from duty since the evening of 10-4-2001. Despite extensive search, Sheikh Alishan was not to be found. Subsequently, on 12-4-2001, dead body of Sheikh Alishan was found in a ditch/quarry owned by one Bhaurao Najan. Accidental death case was registered by the Police and post-mortem was conducted on the body of Sheikh Alishan. The body was later handed over to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner came to know that his son had been taken way by one Kadu Narwade and was forcibly made to drink and then done to death. On 28-4-2001 the petitioner gave oral information at the Police Station, Bidkin about the suspected murder of his son. The petitioner was assured by respondent No. 2 that he would look into the matter. Thereafter on 17-5-2001 and 22-5-2001, the petitioner lodged a complaint, in writing, to the respondents 2 and 3 i.e. Police Inspector, Bidkin and the Superintendent of Police (Rural) Aurangabad. But no action was taken. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court through this petition, seeking a direction to the respondent No. 2 Police Inspector, Bidkin Police Station, for registration of F.I.R. and investigation of the offence. 5. The respondents were noticed and an affidavit-in-reply by Deputy Superintendent of Police Aurangabad (Rural) has been filed. 6. We have gone through the affidavit-in-reply which is at page No. 12 of the petition. In reply, it has been stated that on information from Police Patil, Chattegaon, dead body of Sk. Alishan was found in stone quarry, on 12-4-2001. On this information A.D. No. 12/2001 under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was registered at Bidkin Police Station. Inquest Panchnama, spot Panchnama and other formalities were completed and the body of the deceased Sk. Alishan, was handed over to his father i.e. petitioner, Sheikh Sandu Sk.Karim. Alishan was found in stone quarry, on 12-4-2001. On this information A.D. No. 12/2001 under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was registered at Bidkin Police Station. Inquest Panchnama, spot Panchnama and other formalities were completed and the body of the deceased Sk. Alishan, was handed over to his father i.e. petitioner, Sheikh Sandu Sk.Karim. It is further stated that the statements of the relatives of the deceased including that of the petitioner were recorded. During the enquiry, it transpired that the deceased Sk.Alishan was addicted to consumption of liquor and it was further revealed by the relatives of the deceased including the father of the petitioner that deceased had fallen in the quarry besides the road while returning back home. 7. The respondents have acknowledged that the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Police Station raising suspicion against persons named in the complaint for the murder of the deceased. Sub-Inspector Shri Gurme took over the charge of the A.D. and recorded statements of witnesses including the father of the deceased. The petitioner in his statement which was recorded on 17-4-2001 stated that he over-heard some persons stating that they were successful in commission of the murder of the deceased under the influence of liquor. Shri Gurme, the Police Inspector, recorded statements of many witnesses but nothing was found or disclosed about the commission of the offence. Another report which is filed by the petitioner on 21-5-2001 has also been referred to in the reply-affidavit in which a different story is given by the petitioner. In this complaint, the names of 7/8 persons were given and it was alleged that they were directed by Shri Kadu Narwade to commit murder of the deceased. 8. It is pertinent to note that post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and in the post-mortem haemoperitoneum pile to laceration of liver spleen was found. In the post-mortem report, it was stated that the deceased might have sustained injuries on account of hard and blunt object and that the injuries could have been caused by falling down from height. Finally, in the reply-affidavit, it is stated that during the course of enquiry no material in support of any of the theories narrated by the petitioner was forthcoming. Finally, in the reply-affidavit, it is stated that during the course of enquiry no material in support of any of the theories narrated by the petitioner was forthcoming. In conclusion, it is stated in the reply-affidavit that during the course of enquiry no clue is found showing the involvement of any of the persons named by the petitioner. 9. After having gone through the affidavit-in-reply and after hearing Shri Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioner, we do not see that this case is a fit case for directing anything further to be done in the matter. 10. For our own satisfaction and for the purposes of clarification and correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), we would like to reproduce sections 154, 157 and 159 of the Code, which are required to be read together to understand the scheme of the Code in this regard. "Section 154 : (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 to 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 cost, 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 cognizable 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. "157(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer-in-charge of a Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute 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, top investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender": Provided that--- (a) when 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, 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; (b) if it appears to the officer-in-charge of a Police Station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. (2) In each of the cases mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in-charge of the Police Station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section (9), and, in the case mentioned in Clause (b) of the said proviso the officer shall also 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. "Section 159: Such Magistrate, on receiving such report, may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks fit at once proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in the manner provided in this Code." 11. On careful perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid sections, it would be noted that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence if given orally, has got to be reduced in writing and if it is given in writing, it shall bear the signature of the person giving it. The officer-in-charge of the Police Station is required to enter the substance of information in a form prescribed. The officer-in-charge of the Police Station is required to enter the substance of information in a form prescribed. Further, a copy of the information is required to be given free of cost to the informant. 12. If a person is aggrieved by refusal on the part of the officer in-charge of the Police Station to record the information, the substance of such information in writing can be sent, by post, to the Superintendent of Police Concerned. Section 154 of the Code has got to be read along with the provisions of section 157. The difference between section 154 and section 157 is this : "that, whereas every information covered by the former section must be reduced to writing as provided in that section, it is only information which raises a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence within the jurisdiction of a Police Officer to whom it is given which compels action under the latter section, although of course, a report would be sent to the Magistrate. Upon receiving the said information, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forthwith send a report of the suspected commission of an offence to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report (section 157). It is only, thereafter, and not till then that the investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case starts. Thus, it would be clear that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the stage of first information (section 154) and the stage at which the investigation commences (section 157) are distinct stages." 13. It would further be seen that though investigation is ordinarily undertaken on information received by a Police Officer, the receipt of information is not a condition precedent for investigation. The investigation can be initiated either on information or otherwise. The words, "from information received" in the beginning of section 157 refer to the information given in section 154. Before entering into an investigation, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station has to send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. Thus, section 154 of the Code refers to the report of a cognizable offence received by Police Officer while section 157 of Code refers to the occurrence report to be sent by the Police Officer to the Magistrate. Thus, section 154 of the Code refers to the report of a cognizable offence received by Police Officer while section 157 of Code refers to the occurrence report to be sent by the Police Officer to the Magistrate. On reading of sub-section (1) of section 157, it would be clear that the an officer-in-charge of the Police Station should have reason to suspect the commission of the offence before entering into "an investigation and sending the occurrence report. Not only this, inspite of having reason to suspect the commission of an offence, if it appears to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. This has been made clear by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 157. Section 159 of the Code, empowers a Magistrate to direct investigation in such cases. Section 159 of Code has intended to keep limited powers to the Magistrate to ensure that the police investigate all cognizable offences do not refuse to do so by abusing the right granted for certain limited cases of not proceeding with the investigation of the offence. 14. In our judgment, it is not that on each information even though relating to cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall embark upon the investigation. There is certain amount of subjective satisfaction left with the officer. There should be sufficient material giving rise to suspicion in the mind of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station about the commission of cognizable offence. Even after having reasons to suspect the commission of cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station may not still investigate the case if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to enter into an investigation. The only requirement in either of such cases is that the Police Officer has to record reasons and notify it to the Magistrate concerned. When he has reason to suspect the commission of the offence he has to send the occurrence report to the Magistrate and if it appears to the officer that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall also record reasons and inform the concerned Magistrate who, as stated by us earlier, has been empowered to direct the Police Officer under section 159 of the Code to investigate. 15. 15. In the present case, after having carefully perused the material, we are satisfied that the concerned Police Station Officer has taken note of the various allegations made by the petitioner orally and in writing and we are further satisfied that there is no material on the basis of which it could be said that there were reasonable grounds for the officer to suspect the commission of the offence of murder and the involvement of the persons alleged by the petitioner. We find no illegality or irregularity on the part of the Police Officers. 16. Apart from that, as pointed out by us in earlier paragraphs, the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the Police Station is empowered to direct investigation under section 159 of the Code, if necessary. We are of the considered view that while the petition by aggrieved accused for quashing the F.I.R. and further investigation into it before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may lie, it is not generally open to the aggrieved informant to move the High Court directly for directions to the Police Officers to enter upon the investigation of the offence without first taking recourse to the remedies available to him which we have referred to in earlier paragraphs. Finally, we may add that it is always open for the information to file complaint before the competent Magistrate having jurisdiction under the provisions of section 200 of the Code. 17. In the result, the criminal writ petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. Criminal writ petition dismissed. -----