V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an advocate practising at Visakhapatnam. He was married to Swetha at Eluru on 23-4-2001. For various reasons, including due to alleged incompatibility, wife and husband could not live together much longer. Therefore, at the behest of elders they entered into a notarise agreement on 17-9-2001 to dissolve the marriage and also settle all the disputes relating to sharing of common property and common assets. It is now alleged that the third respondent, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Visakhapatnam, started going to the house of the petitioner in civil dress and threatening the petitioner and his aged mother with dire consequences, if the petitioner does not settle the things with Smt. Swetha. It is also alleged that the third respondent obtained signatures of the petitioner and his mother on blank papers and harassing both of them by insisting that the petitioner should disclose the particulars of his sister residing at chennai, in State of Tamil Nadu. There are other allegations made against the third respondent, a reference to which is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the case. Be that as it may, on these allegations, the petitioner approached this court in January, 2002 praying this Court to declare the action of the respondents in taking signatures on blank papers and continuously harassing the petitioner and his mother is unconstitutional. ( 2 ) THE matter was listed way back on 29-1-2002 and this Court requested the learned Government Pleader for Home to get instructions in the matter. The matter was again adjourned on as many as eight occasions. The Sub-Inspector of Police, iv Town (Law and Order) Police Station, visakhapatnam filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent who is impleaded in his personal capacity has also filed counter-affidavit. The respondents 1 and 2 in their counter- affidavit denied all the allegations made in the writ petition and also plead misjoinder of parties as no complaint is made against respondents 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE third respondent, Inspector of Police, CBCID, in his counter-affidavit states that Smt. Galla Swetha, wife of the petitioner, gave a petition to the superintendent of Police, Women Protection cell, C. I. D. , Hyderabad, on 18-10-2001 alleging dowry harassment and cheating by suppressing the impotency of her husband, and harassment subsequent to marriage for more dowry. ( 3 ) THE third respondent, Inspector of Police, CBCID, in his counter-affidavit states that Smt. Galla Swetha, wife of the petitioner, gave a petition to the superintendent of Police, Women Protection cell, C. I. D. , Hyderabad, on 18-10-2001 alleging dowry harassment and cheating by suppressing the impotency of her husband, and harassment subsequent to marriage for more dowry. The said application was forwarded by the Additional Director-General of Police, C. I. D. , A. P. vide letter dated 6470/ c14/wpc/cid/2001 dated 1-11-2001 for enquiry and also for verifying the genuineness of the petitioner and for submission of report. He further states that according to the advise of the Additional director General of Police, he enquired into the matter and examined twelve witnesses including the petitioner and mother of the petitioner. He also admits that on. 22-11-2001 he along with his staff visited the house of the petitioner in civil dress to take statements from the petitioner and his mother and also enquired about the sister of the petitioner so as to record her version. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit the third respondent also states that during the enquiry it was revealed that on 2-9-2001 there was oral agreement between the petitioner and his wife before the elders for mutual divorce on condition that the petitioner returns the dowry amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and other amounts towards expenses at the time of marriage. On 17-9-2001 an agreement was entered into, but as agreed orally the petitioner did not return the amount. The third respondent, however, denied the allegations made by the petitioner that the former obtained signatures of the petitioner and his mother on blank papers. He also denied that he made telephone calls threatening the petitioner. Insofar as appeasing the Commissioner of police, Visakhapatnam, and Inspector of police, IV Town Police Station is concerned the third respondent state that they are not superiors and he is not answerable to them. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed reply affidavit denying the allegations made by the third respondent in his counter-affidavit. He also denied that his wife Swetha gave a petition to the Superintendent of Police, women Protection Cell on 18-10-2001. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed reply affidavit denying the allegations made by the third respondent in his counter-affidavit. He also denied that his wife Swetha gave a petition to the Superintendent of Police, women Protection Cell on 18-10-2001. He further stated that no crime was registered under Section 154 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) and therefore the third respondent is not competent to proceed with the investigation much less recording statements of as many as twelve witnesses. He also states that under Section 154 (3) of the Code the additional Director General of Police, C1d, government of Andhra Pradesh, is not superior to direct any subordinate police official to register a crime and investigate into the matter and the same thing can be done only by District Police Unit Head like, superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police and therefore, the action of the third respondent is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. Ultimately, the petitioner also states that on 1-4-2002 Crime No. 7 of 2002 was registered under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (1pc) by a Senior executive Officer, of the rank of Deputy inspector General of Police basing on the complaint dated 28-3-2002. ( 6 ) 1 have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home and learned Counsel for third respondent Sri Sarvabhouma Rao. ( 7 ) BOTH the learned Counsel for the respondents are not able to justify the action of the third respondent in enquiring/ investigating into the alleged complaint given by Smt Swetha, at Hyderabad which was allegedly forwarded by the Additional director General of Police, C. I. D. Indeed, in law, there is no justification at all. The law is clear that unless the Police Officer enters the information regarding commission of offence in a register maintained by the Police Officer as prescribed by the state Government, the Police Officer or investigating Officer cannot take up any investigation. Under the Code every person is under duty to aid proper investigation of cognizance of offence and therefore there are adequate provisions enabling the investigating Officer even to compel a person to produce documents before him or give a statement to aid investigation. Under the Code every person is under duty to aid proper investigation of cognizance of offence and therefore there are adequate provisions enabling the investigating Officer even to compel a person to produce documents before him or give a statement to aid investigation. Such being the legal position, the law does not recognise any right or duty of any Police officer to make enquiries into the allegations of commission of cognizable crime without registering the crime as per sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code. Further, under Section 154 (3) of the Code, if the officer-in-charge of Police Station refuses or declines to register cognizable crime the complainant is given right to approach the Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, who on satisfying himself would investigate or cause investigation to be done by a subordinate officer. ( 8 ) IN this background, the question that requires for consideration is whether the third respondent is justified in going to the house of the petitioner in civil dress along with Constables for recording statements of the petitioner and his mother as well as ten other witnesses and obtaining particulars of the petitioner and his sister residing in Chennai? ( 9 ) THE third respondent claims justification for his actions on a communication dated 1-11-2001 which he allegedly received from Additional Director general of Police, C. I. D. , A. P. He also states that he is not subordinate to the commissioner of Police or the Inspector of police in-charge of IV Town Police Station, visakhapatnam. Therefore, there was no justification for the third respondent being the Inspector of Police, CBCID to investigate or enquire into the matter. It is well known that ordinarily the cases are investigated by the police officials in charge of the Law and Order Police Station, unless the law specifies that only a particular investigating Officer must investigate an offence. For example, offences under scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and other cases which are specifically referred to Crime Branch, the cases stand transferred to Crime Branch, C. I. D. and then Inspector of Police, CBCID comes into picture. But this procedure was followed more in breach in this case. For example, offences under scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and other cases which are specifically referred to Crime Branch, the cases stand transferred to Crime Branch, C. I. D. and then Inspector of Police, CBCID comes into picture. But this procedure was followed more in breach in this case. ( 10 ) THE above view is supported by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Omkar v. Commissioner of Police, 1996 (4) ALT 733 (DB ). In the said case a complaint was given to the Additional deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force, alleging criminal breach of trust by Omkar. The offence was cognizable by Kharkhana police Station over which the Additional deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force, has no administrative control. The Additional deputy Commissioner of Police, Task force deputed Inspector of Police for investigation into the crime without registering the case. It was alleged that the petitioner therein was harassed and the petitioner s right under Article 21 of the constitution of India is impinged. While allowing the writ petition the Division Bench observed. There can be a Police Station having jurisdiction over the entire State in respect of certain offences and there can be a Police station having a limited territorial jurisdiction and limitations upon the types of offences which they can investigate or in respect of which they can deal with. This, however, cannot deny to a Police Officer exercising power as respects arrest of a person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or otherwise found as one who should be taken in custody or search of a place or places or search of the arrested person or seizure of offensive weapons and other properties. But in all such cases for cognizance to exercise power of the Officer in-charge of a Police Station, one must have the status of an officer superior in rank, having been so appointed by the Government and if there is no such appointment merely because otherwise such a person is an officer higher in rank, he cannot have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and order for any enquiry or investigation. Superior Police Officers, in particular, are not expected to be unaware of the divisional jurisdiction of the Officers and their being positioned for particular functions and to exercise jurisdiction in a particular area. Superior Police Officers, in particular, are not expected to be unaware of the divisional jurisdiction of the Officers and their being positioned for particular functions and to exercise jurisdiction in a particular area. ( 11 ) YET again, it was observed: Even if it is conceded, which concession, however, is not permissible that the additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was an officer superior in rank to the Officer- in-charge of the kharkhan Police Station, could he without registration of the case depute the Inspector of Police and decide at his own level whether, as alleged, any offence has been made out or not. The only answer to the above is that he could not do so. We have already noticed some of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure in this behalf. As an officer superior in rank, while he could exercise the powers of the Officer in-charge of the police Station, he could at best act as contemplated under Section 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or as a superior Officer order for the registration of the cases at the appropriate Police Station and could subject to the control of the magistrate as contemplated under the code either investigate the case himself or entrust the investigation to another officer. ( 12 ) SRI Sarvabhouma Rao, however, submits that in certain matters including the complaints regarding matrimonial disputes executive instructions have been issued requiring the Investigating Officers not to straightaway register crime under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code, but make discreet enquiry, come to a prima facie conclusion and register crime. Therefore, he submits that the action of the third respondent is justified. I am afraid, i cannot agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for reasons more than one. ( 13 ) THE counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent is silent on this aspect that he has power to investigate even before the crime is registered. Secondly, no material, much less, alleged executive instructions, are placed before me. In any event, it is axiomatic that executive instructions can only supplement the law and cannot supplant the law. When the law is very clear it is futile for the Counsel for the third respondent to rely on executive instructions which have not seen the light of the day till now. In any event, it is axiomatic that executive instructions can only supplement the law and cannot supplant the law. When the law is very clear it is futile for the Counsel for the third respondent to rely on executive instructions which have not seen the light of the day till now. Further, in a case like this, admittedly the third respondent has already recorded statements of twelve witnesses. The law requires the officer first to register crime and record statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code. Without registering crime if a Police Officer records statements of witnesses the law does not recognise those statements as the statements for the purpose of Section 161 of the Code. Those statements cannot be the basis in case police officials want to file charge-sheet against the petitioner. This shows that the whole exercise was done only by the third respondent to please some higher official and during the process, the entire law of criminal procedure was ignored. It must be remembered that the Code provides number of safeguards to the citizens keeping in view the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner s right "to be left alone" guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution is grossly violated. Further, if any higher police official sends a case to an official of lower rank of police, unless the crime is registered by the addressee, no investigation can be taken up under the code. ( 14 ) IN the result, having regard to the fact that subsequently a crime is registered as Crime No. 7 of 2002 under Section 498-A of 1pc on 1-4-2002, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations. The Additional Director General of police may take appropriate action into the matter having regard to the observations made hereinabove. It is however made clear that if the offence is committed at Visakhapatnam, the same may be investigated by Commissioner of police, Visakhapatnam or any of his subordinates. The third respondent shall pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.