ORDER: The above criminal original petition has been filed under Sec .482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.RC.MAI 2002 A 0052, dated 11.10.2002 from the file of the respondent and quash the same. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has registered a case in Cr.No.RC.MAI 2002 A 0052, dated 11.10.2002 under Sec.l20-B read with Secs.420, 467, 471, I.P.C., and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act impleading the petitioner and nine others as accused; that the petitioner would allege that the case was registered not on a complaint or information by any person but on his own information alleged to have been received by the respondent; that there was a preliminary independent enquiry conducted by the respondent based on the said information; that even after registration of the case, treating the information as complaint, within the meaning of Sec. 154, Crl.P.C, the respondent could not identify any person as an informant and this clearly indicates that the registration of the case does not have the sanction of Sec. 154, Crl.P.C. to justify the investigation under Sec. 157, Crl.P.C; that information indicates vague and prima fa- cie inconclusive materials to justify such information as ‘an information’ referred to under Sec. 154, Crl.P.C; that there is no indication that any internal auditing, investigation or domestic enquiry was even launched as permitted by the rules governing the functioning of the bank; that the requirements of Sec. 154, Crl.P.C. stand ig-nored; that the petitioner herein is neither the official of the bank nor the firm which availed the credit facility; that there is no case for investigation as against the petitioner and the same is non est in the eye of the law and that therefore the petitioner has come forward to file the above criminal original petition seeking the relief extracted supra. 3. 3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would reiterate the facts and circumstances brought forth in the above criminal original petition without bringing forth any new fact or circumstance or law pertaining to the subject and therefore tracing the same would only be a repetition of the same old facts which have already been traced, drawing the source from out of the complaint. 4. On the part of the Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I., he would simply argue that such a case registered by the respondent could be maintained, without showing the law providing for such a case to be registered nor even citing a precedent ratifying such a case registered on any legal grounds and therefore this Court is left with no choice but to decide the matter on facts and circumstances pleaded and the materials made available on record. 5. It is a case registered against the petitioner and nine others by the respondent for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sec.l20-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C, read with Secs. 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No mention need be necessary that deviating from Sec. 154, Crl.P.C, no case could be registered in law and therefore it has become incumbent on the part of this Court to quote Sec.154, Crl. 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No mention need be necessary that deviating from Sec. 154, Crl.P.C, no case could be registered in law and therefore it has become incumbent on the part of this Court to quote Sec.154, Crl. P.C: “Information in cognizable cases: (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 informations, 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-sec.(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-sec.(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.” 6. From the wordings of the Section which are plain, positive and straight forward, the case could be registered only on information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and there is no iota of doubt that the case which is registered relating to the above criminal original petition is a cognizable offence. From the wordings of the Section which are plain, positive and straight forward, the case could be registered only on information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and there is no iota of doubt that the case which is registered relating to the above criminal original petition is a cognizable offence. Secondly, such a case of a cognizable offence could be registered on information furnished orally to an officer in charge of a police station, in which event it should be reduced into writing by him or under his direction by anyone else and be read over to the informant and in case the information comes forth in writing, or a oral information reduced into writing, it shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered into a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government has prescribed. 7. Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.154, Crl.P.C. would contemplate that a copy of such information recorded under Sub-sec.(1) shall be issued forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. This Section is mandatory. In the case in hand, since no information comes forth orally so as to be reduced into writing to be accepted and taken on file, the question of complying with this mandatory provision of law has no place. The case has been registered suo motu at the pleasure of the respondent, for no reason assigned and for no trace of the source of information revealed in the case registered. 8. Sub-sec.(3) gives the manner in which the complaint, which has been refused to be recorded or taken on file by the officer in charge of a police station in the manner warranted under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.154, Crl.P.C, could be sent by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned and in such event, such information discloses a cognizable offence, how the complaint should be dealt with etc. 9. 9. A careful perusal of the information said to have been received by the respondent is bald in the sense that application of Sec.154, Crl.P.C. has no place nor could it be said that the case has been registered in accordance with the provisions of law envisaged under Sec. 154, Crl.P.C. and therefore no time need be wasted in arriving at the conclusion that it is not a case registered in accordance with law and hence such a case registered, deviating from the warranting procedures contemplated under Sec.154, Crl.P.C, has absolutely bereft of the force of the law and the same is non est in law and therefore becomes only liable to be quashed and hence the following order: In result, (i) the above criminal original petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR in Cr.No.RC.MAI 2002 A 0052 dated 11.10.02 on the file of the respondent is quashed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.2302 of 2003 is closed.