B. A. KHAN ( 1 ) PETITIONERS claim to be Pastor and Secretary of Baptist Church Karol Bagh. Their grievance is that they had lodged a complaint in P. S. Karol Bagh on 18. 10. 2000 and also on 26. 11. 2000 alleging that accused persons named in the complaint had beaten up the Church bearer, disturbed Sunday prayer meeting and man-handled petitioner No. 1 who had suffered substantial injuries but no case was registered. They later sent these complaints to Lt. Governor, Commissioner of Police, DCP and ACP of the area concerned but in vain. It is accordingly prayed that concerned SHO be directed to register a FIR against accused persons and its investigation be handed over to the Crime Branch/ Economic Offence Branch of Delhi Police. ( 2 ). Status report filed on behalf of respondent shows that Baptist Union of North India (BUNI), managing various churches and properties in North India had split into three factions, one being controlled by petitioners who were engaged in gaining supremacy upon each other. It is denied that any report was lodged by petitioners about any incident on 26. 11. 2000. However, their complaint was received on 28. 11. 2000 in which some enquiry was made but allegations were found unsubstantiated and thus no case was registered. ( 3 ). L/c for petitioners Mr. Masih submitted that once information was laid before the concerned S. H. O. alleging commission of cognizable offence he was duty bound to register the case against accused persons. He placed reliance for this on Supreme Court judgements in AIR 1984 SC 1271 (Liberty OH Mills and Ors. Vs. Union of India) and AIR 1997 SC 940 (Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) ( 4 ). State counsel Ms. Mukta Gupta, however, justified non-registration of petitioner s complaint in the background of internal power tussel raging between various factions of BUNI She submitted that some enquiry was made into the allegations made in the complaint of petitioner which was found vague and uncertain and unsubstantiated and therefore no case could be registered. She relied upon DB judgement of this court in "v. M. Singh Vs. State" to suggest that no FIR was liable to be registered on petitioners complaint. ( 5 ). She relied upon DB judgement of this court in "v. M. Singh Vs. State" to suggest that no FIR was liable to be registered on petitioners complaint. ( 5 ). It is well-settled by now that once an information alleging commission of cognizable offence was laid before an officer of a Police Station, duty was casted on him under Sections 154 (1) Cr. P. C. to enter the substance of the complaint on the prescribed form and to register an FIR. Though, he may make some. enquiry into whether a cognizable offence was indicated or disclosed, and if it was, he had no option but to register an FIR and where he failed to do so because of the complaint being vague or uncertain or surrounded by any doubt about commission of cognizable offence the complainant had alternative remedy of filing private complaint by invoking Sections 199, 200 Cr. P. C. ( 6 ). This position is firmly established by series of judgements of Supreme Court. It becomes unnecessary to quote from these Judgements to prove the obvious. However, it would be worthwhile to quote from one of these in "all India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Employees Union" ( 1996 (11) SCC 582 laying down as under:- "when the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. " ( 7 ). If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. " ( 7 ). Tested on these parameters it appears to us that police action in the matter could not be faulted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Not only was petitioners complaint couched in generalised terms, it also failed to indicate any cognizable offence in its form. Therefore, even if, some enquiry by the police officer had resulted in non-registration of FIR he could not be charged of failure to discharge his statutory duty. ( 8 ). All things considered coupled with the fact that petitioners could resort to alternate remedy of filing a private complaint if they are convinced of the genuineness of their cause. We do not feel inclined to direct the SHO concerned to register a case on petitioners complaint leaving them free to take any other appropriate legal remedy in the matter. ( 9 ). Petition is resultantly dismissed.