Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Sushma had originally filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for registration of a criminal case against respondent Nos. 5 to 11 as also for handing over the investigation relating to the suicide by her husband Jaibir Singh to the Central Bureau of Investigation. On 14.5.2005, in Criminal Misc. No. 22833 of 2004, this Court had passed the following order :- "As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with Section 482 Cr.P.C." allowing Sushma to invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enable the Court for moulding the reliefs sought for by her by exercise of its constitutional powers in addition to those contained in Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Facts, which according to the petitioner necessitate intervention of the Court and are not disputed by the respondents, are that her husband HC Jaibir Singh while posted as Moharrir Head Constable in Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula had on 10.10.2003 shot himself with the service revolver allotted to SI Bant Ram at the time when he was sitting in the Malkhana of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. The information regarding the death was given to SHO Ashok Bakshi by Constable Raj Kumar. On receipt of this information, SHO had gone to the Malkhana and seen that Jaibir Singh slumped in the chair of Moharrir Head Constable with a gun shot wound in his forehead. The entry regarding the incident was recorded as DDR No. 28 at 8.15 p.m. the translated version whereof reads as under :- "28. Inspr. Ashok Kumar, Information 10.10.2003, 8.15 p.m. SHO/P.S. Sector 5, Panchkula Today i.e. 10.10.2003, I was taking meal at my residence. I received a telephonic message from HC Krishan Kumar from Police Station that two items (Maden), kept in a box are not traceable in the box, so come to Police Station, upon which I came Police Station after taking meal. On my reaching to the Police Station, Head Constable Krishan Kumar told me that he (Krishan Kumar) had taken over charge of cash items relating to case property on 9.10.2003 from HC Jaibir Singh. He (Krishan Kumar) had locked the same after putting all the said items in the box. On my reaching to the Police Station, Head Constable Krishan Kumar told me that he (Krishan Kumar) had taken over charge of cash items relating to case property on 9.10.2003 from HC Jaibir Singh. He (Krishan Kumar) had locked the same after putting all the said items in the box. Key of the lock of the said iron box was handed over to him by HC Jaibir Singh stating that there is only one key of this lock and there are two keys of the lock, used for out door of the Malkhana. One key was handed over to him (Krishan Kumar) and another key was kept by HC Jabir Singh. Thereafter HC Jabir Singh had gone to his residence and went to sleep after taking meal. 3 In the morning after cleaning the Malkhana, he (Krishan Kumar) checked the articles which were in order. At 11-00 a.m. he (Krishan Kumar) went to Sh. Desh Bandhu, DSD/HQ/Panchkula to his office to get the result of F.S.L. opened, but the officer was not found available in his office. Then he went to his residence and got the result opened and returned to Police Station at about 1.30 p.m. At that time, Parkash Armourer was present in the Police Station who told that he (Parkash) has to prepare test report of pistol recovered in case FIR No. 573/2003, so he (Parkash) asked for the pistol. He went to the Malkhana and after opening the iron box when he was to carryout the said pistol, he noticed that two big items (Maden) of cash were missing from the box. He suspected and went to MHC after closing the box. He enquired from MHC about HC Jaibir Singh because he had also one key of the Malkhana, there two officials namely Subhash and Sentry duty Const. Madan Lal No. 358/PKL were present, who told that they saw HC Jaibir Singh and KHC Narinder going on a scooter with an envelope in hand at about 1.00 p.m. After that Jaibir also arrived at the Police Station. He (Krishan Kumar) asked Jaibir for the said missed items, who told that he (Jaibir) had come to the Malkhana, but he has no concern with the said items. Thereafter I called HC Jaibir and inquired the matter. He (Krishan Kumar) asked Jaibir for the said missed items, who told that he (Jaibir) had come to the Malkhana, but he has no concern with the said items. Thereafter I called HC Jaibir and inquired the matter. Jaibir explained that he had handed over the charge of all cash items relating to cases to HC Krishan and there was only one key of the box which was duly handed over to HC Krishan Kumar. After deposing in the Court at Ambala he had come to Police Station at about 12.30 p.m. and at the same moment he had gone to hand over an amount of Rs. 26,895/- relating to item No. 571/02 kept in a Khaki coloured (envelope) to MMJ, actually it was a total amount of Rs. 51,895/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- had already been given to the MMJ. After handing over Rs. 26,895/- to MMJ, he had gone to AC-II to take Rs. 3,000/- back and then went to Police Lines and from there came to Police Station along with HC Raj Kumar on scooter. In the Police Station, HC Krishan Kumar asked for the missed articles but he (Jaibir Singh) had no knowledge about the same because he (Jaibir Singh) had already given the charge of said items along with key of the box to Krishan. After that I made them understand that you have just handed over and taken over the charge, so you should resolve the matter yourselves. Thereafter, I had gone to take medicine because I was not feeling well. In the evening, MHC told me on my cell-phone that SP Sahib is coming to the police station, however, prior to my reaching, HC Krishan appeared before the SP and narrated about the missed articles. On reaching, SP directed me to verify the facts and also directed to keep the police station clean and then SP left the police station. I called duty officer Harbhajan Singh, Sub Inspector, HC Krishan Kumar and HC Jaibir in my office and made them understand that the matter relates to the case property of a criminal case, so you re-check the Malkhana. I also directed SI Harbhajan Singh to enquire into the matter. After some time, SI Harbhajan Singh told me that Jaibir Singh has given some amount to MMJ today. I also directed SI Harbhajan Singh to enquire into the matter. After some time, SI Harbhajan Singh told me that Jaibir Singh has given some amount to MMJ today. Then I asked Harbhajan Singh to call for MMJ and to verify as to what amount he (Jaibir) has given to MMJ and thereafter, I remained busy with my work. After that at about 7.30 p.m. Harbhajan, Subhash and MMJ Sukhwinder came to my office. I enquired the matter from Sukhwinder, who told that Jaibir had given him Rs. 26,895/- which was the remaining amount of case No. 571/02 as Jaibir had already handed over the rest of the amount Rs. 25,000/-. When we all were discussing the matter, then in the meantime HC Raj Kumar came to my office and told that HC Jaibir Singh has committed suicide by shooting himself and is lying dead, on which I, along with Harbhajan, Sukha & Subhash rushed to the spot and other officials also reached there. We saw Jaibir lying dead in his chair and there was blood in huge quantity on the floor. When we were watching the spot then MHC Pyare Lal told me that when he was coming towards his office from the barrack then he saw HC Raj Kumar was concealing some bundle in his waistband underneath the shirt after taking out from the almirah lying in the Malkhana. I asked Raj Kumar about the bundle who told that he has no bundle. Then I conducted personal search of Raj Kumar in the presence of all the officials and found a bundle of currency notes which was kept in his waistband underneath the shirt. On counting, it was an amount of Rs. 45,410/-. Thereafter, I informed the incident to SP Sahib & DSP Sahib Desh Bandhu and requested them to come to the police station soon. Report is recorded in token of record. Recorded by Inspector/SHO." 4. Pursuant to the direction received by him from his superiors, the SHO had sent for a team from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and informed the relations of the deceased. Report is recorded in token of record. Recorded by Inspector/SHO." 4. Pursuant to the direction received by him from his superiors, the SHO had sent for a team from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and informed the relations of the deceased. On the arrival of the team from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula after appraisal of the scene of crime, the team prepared the following report :- "It was stated by SHO Shri Ashok Bakshi Inspector, Sector 5, Panchkula that on 10.10.2003 at about 8 p.m. HC Jaibeer No. 116 committed suicide in the malkhana of thana using firearm. The incident was reported to him by HC Raj Singh No. 56 when he was sitting in his room. I.O. wanted to ascertain the actual facts :- Observations : Following observations were made at the place of occurrence :- 1. Blood smeared sleeper impressions were observed starting from malkhana door of Police Station and extended upto the room of SHO. 2. HC Jaibir Singh No. 116 was found lying dead on the chair in malkhana in semi-lying position. 3. A 9 mm pistol No. EYG 287, made in Austria, was lying in the lap with sling in the right hand. 4. A fired 9 mm cartridge case in partially ejected position was lying in the chamber of pistol. 5. Two live 9 mm cartridges were found in the magazine of the pistol and taken out. 6. A large pool of blood and brain material was lying on left side of chair on which deceased was lying. 7. Sleeper impressions were also observed on the pool of blood going towards steel almirah lying on right side of the chair of the deceased. 8. Steel almirah was found in opened condition. 9. Blood smeared sleeper impressions were also observed coming out from the malkhana. These sleeper impressions were found to be similar to that of HC Raj Singh No. 56 sleepers. Blood was also detected on lower portion of sleepers of HC Raj Singh No. 56. 10. A triangular shaped injury of about 4.5 x 3.5 x 3 cms. base was observed in the center of forehead of the deceased. 11. A hole of 2x1 cm. was observed in the center of triangle wound, near the base in the skull. 12. No blackening etc. was observed around the hole. 13. An exit wound of size 1x1 cm. A triangular shaped injury of about 4.5 x 3.5 x 3 cms. base was observed in the center of forehead of the deceased. 11. A hole of 2x1 cm. was observed in the center of triangle wound, near the base in the skull. 12. No blackening etc. was observed around the hole. 13. An exit wound of size 1x1 cm. was observed on back right side of head at 10 cms. from the centre of back of right ear. 14. Blackening & blood splashes were observed in the left plam of deceased. Swabs were taken from the hand of the deceased. Nitrite was found positive on hands. 15. Currency notes of Rs. 50+20+5+2 Rs. coin (1+1) were recovered from the front pocket of shirt of the deceased. 16.Two pens, a daily pass, a medical outdoor ticket of deceased of G.H. Panchkula and leave account slip from SP Office, Panchkula were also recovered from the front pocket of shirt of the deceased. 17. A rexin purse containing Rs. 900/- (500+4x100), a visiting card, a passport size photograph of deceased and T.V.S. motor company sticker were recovered from back right pocket of pant. 18. A suicide note was recovered from the right socks of the deceased. The note was first taken away by mob of relatives of the deceased present in the P.S. and then returned back to SDM/Kalka, Sh. Devinder Kaushik, HCS, after half an hour. 19. Efforts were made to search for the exited bullet from the malkhana, but the same could not be recovered. I.O. was advised to send all the exhibits to FSL for further examination & report. Inference : From the above observations it seems to be a case of suicide using firearm." 5 Since the death was controversial, the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula requested the District Magistrate, Panchkula for appointment of an Executive Magistrate to conduct the inquest proceedings, whereupon Shri Devinder Kaushik, HCS, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalka was deputed for the purpose by the District Magistrate, Panchkula vide letter dated 10.10.2003 vide memo No. 1 Spl./Confidential. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar also visited the spot in pursuance to the direction issued to him by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala, who himself had been directed to look into the matter on account of alleged misappropriation of money amounting to Rs. 95,000/-, which was lying in the Malkhana. 7. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar also visited the spot in pursuance to the direction issued to him by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala, who himself had been directed to look into the matter on account of alleged misappropriation of money amounting to Rs. 95,000/-, which was lying in the Malkhana. 7. After conducting post-mortem on the dead body of Jaibir Singh, Dr. Prabha Sood, Dr. Monisha Modi and Dr. Yogesh Kumar found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- "1. Wound of entry in the middle of forehead measuring about 5 cm x 3 cm irregular and with seat marks (black around the circle of wound). 2. Wound of exit 1 cm x 1 cm on the @ side of middle occipital region about 12 cm from right ear. No other injury was present on the body. No bruises present on the body. and opined to the following effect :- "In our (opinion) the cause of death in this case is shock and haemorrhage due to bullet injury shot from close range which is sufficient to explain the cause of death in this case." As the death of Jaibir Singh had taken place within the precincts of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula and there was a suicide note to the following effect :- "Mahender Singh Malik D.G.P. Mahender Singh Malik, A.I.G. Welfare, Navdeep Singh Virk, I.P.S. Hardeep Singh Jaggi, Property Dealer Mehar Singh Steno, S.P. Yamuna Nagar, H.C. Raj Pal, 1394, Ambala DSP Jagwant Lamba. All the aforesaid persons have been committing excesses with me. Today at the instance of Malik DGP and Malik AIG Welfare, they making false charge of Rs. 95,000/- against me. Getting harassed at the hands of these people, I am committing suicide. Sd/- (In Eng.) 10.10.2003 7.05 p.m." and the allegations therein were being repeated by his relatives, the District Magistrate, Panchkula on 17.10.2002 ordered for a more detailed equity into the circumstances leading to his death by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panchkula. The Executive Magistrate conducted an enquiry and submitted a report running into 44 pages and concluded the same in the following terms :- "Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, I reach to the conclusion that HC Jaibir Singh was already under mental tension and perturbed. It has been stated that on 10.10.2003, after coming to the Malkhana he gave Rs. It has been stated that on 10.10.2003, after coming to the Malkhana he gave Rs. 26,895/- to Naib MMJ. On that day five parcels of case property worth Rs. 95,000/- had been found missing and he apprehended that he was going to be accused of the same as he had not handed over complete charge of Malkhana by then and he was having one key of the Malkhana also and he had visited the Malkhana during the day time. This aggravated his mental tension and he committed suicide in Malkhana while sitting on his seat with pistol. Therefore, it is a case of suicide under mental tension. No truth was found either in the allegations levelled by the deceased in the suicide note against the officers mentioned in it or in affidavits of the complainant and Smt. Sushma, wife of the deceased. As far as question of non-registration of case after suicide is concerned, in this regard it is worth mentioning that no complaint is stated to have been given by any of his relatives to the police before the arrival of SDM, Kalka and suicide note was recovered from one of the socks of deceased in the presence of SDM, Kalka during the inquest proceedings and the same was got sealed immediately by SDM, Kalka and to compare the handwriting and signatures of deceased on the suicide note, the same was handed over to be sent to Madhuban. After post-mortem examination of the deceased and after completing the remaining legal formalities, SDM, Kalka submitted inquest report to the District Magistrate, Panchkula, who on the request of S.P. Panchkula had ordered for Magisterial Enquiry. The report along with original documents bearing file page No. 1 to 283/284 and file of original statements containing pages from 1 to 497/498 is submitted for further action." 8. The controversy regarding the death still did not die down and dissatisfied wife of Jaibir Singh filed Criminal Misc. No. 49227-M of 2003, in which she had appended her own affidavit and the affidavits of Sarvshri Capt. Brahamjit Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jasbir Singh, Jagbir Singh and Spattar Singh to support the apprehension entertained by the family for providing a basis for investigation into a cognizable offence, which had been committed in the precinets of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. In the proceedings, she had joined following persons Sarv/Shri :- "1. Brahamjit Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jasbir Singh, Jagbir Singh and Spattar Singh to support the apprehension entertained by the family for providing a basis for investigation into a cognizable offence, which had been committed in the precinets of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. In the proceedings, she had joined following persons Sarv/Shri :- "1. Ranbir Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Panchkula; 2. Ashok Bakshi, S.H.O., Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula; 3. M.S. Malik, I.P.S., Director General of Police, Haryana, Chandigarh; 4. M.S. Malik, I.P.S., Assistant Inspector General of Police, Police Welfare, Haryana, Police Headquarters, Sector 6, Panchkula; 5. Navdip Singh Virk, I.P.S. Superintendent of Police, CBI through Director, CBI, CBI Headquarters, New Delhi; 6. Mehar Singh, Steno to the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar; 7. HC Raj Pal No. 1394, through S.S.P. Ambala; 8. Jagwant Lamba, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jind; 9. Hardip Singh Jagi, Property Dealer, Jagi Property Dealer, Jagi Colony, Ambala City. as party-respondents as according to her, administrative orders passed by these officers from time to time during the service career of her husband cumulatively affected his mental state and instigated him to take his own life as is evident in the suicide note referred to herein-before. In support of their assertions, Sushma and her relations have filed additional affidavits and the respondents have put in written replies, the details whereof need not be adverted to by us at this stage, to assert that the apprehension of family was unfounded and do not provide any basis for investigating into an offence of abetment of suicide against them. 9. During the pendency of the Criminal Misc. the State of Haryana had offered and got conducted a high level enquiry from the Chief Secretary, Haryana, who too while commenting for acceptance of the report of Executive Magistrate has opined as under :- "I have considered the inquiry report of SDM Panchkula and the objections to the said report of the petitioner and my report is as under :- 1. The Inquiry Report of SDM, Panchkula, deals with the question entrusted in a fairly thorough manner and brings out the cause of death lucidly and clearly. The conclusion that Head Constable Jaibir Singh committed suicide is established. 2. The Inquiry Report of SDM, Panchkula, deals with the question entrusted in a fairly thorough manner and brings out the cause of death lucidly and clearly. The conclusion that Head Constable Jaibir Singh committed suicide is established. 2. One of the objections raised is that for purpose of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had listed 29 witnesses which included the names of Shri M.S. Malik, DGP, Haryana and Shri N.S. Virk and these two were never examined. Given the limited scope of the inquiry i.e. to establish the cause of death, it was not necessary that all the witnesses initially cited be called if sufficient evidence had emerged to enable the Inquiry Officer to come to a conclusion. It seems that the DGP has replied to the Inquiry Officer to the effect that the reply given by him in this very writ petition be treated as his statement for purpose of this inquiry and the Inquiry Officer had made reference to the same at places. This also applies to Shri N.S. Virk. The purpose of the Inquiry being to establish the cause of death the objection is not one which vitiates it. 3. The SDM has carefully examined the role of all those against whom the complainant had levelled accusations. The contents and authenticity of the suicide note has also been examined quite comprehensively. I agree with the conclusion of the SDM on the point that the persons mentioned in the suicide note are in no way connected with the suicide of Head Constable Jaibir Singh and there is no nexus between his suicide and the various acts attributed to the officials and non-officials mentioned in the suicide note. It shall be sheer harassment if the persons mentioned in the suicide note are allowed to be arrayed as respondents in any inquiry or probe as things in this regard are absolutely clear. 4. The report examines the probable causes of suicide and highlights two aspects in this regard. The first is the frustration of Head Constable Jaibir Singh arising from the long litigation concerning departmental action against him. The second is the apprehension of being faced with a serious charge of pilferage of a heavy amount of Rs. 95,000/- which was reported to be missing from the Malkhana. The report of SDM Panchkula raises a question mark on the possible involvement of Head Constable Krishan Kumar in the matter. The second is the apprehension of being faced with a serious charge of pilferage of a heavy amount of Rs. 95,000/- which was reported to be missing from the Malkhana. The report of SDM Panchkula raises a question mark on the possible involvement of Head Constable Krishan Kumar in the matter. The conduct of another official Head Constable Raj Kumar also raises serious suspicion. It also appears that the whole business of handing over and taking over of charge of Malkhana was being done in a very routine and casual manner. The possibility that cash which was case property was being used as a personal ways and means advance by various officials posted in the Police Station cannot be ruled out. The behaviour of Head Constable Raj Kumar, who first discovered the dead body and from whose custody a substantial amount of Rs. 45,410/- was recovered, the conduct of Head Constable Krishan Kumar who statedly took charge of the cash box from Head Constable, Jaibir Singh (deceased) is questionable. According to the information obtained from the Police Station, an FIR was lodged under Sections 380, 411 & 452 on 14.10.2003 against HC Raj Kumar, he was arrested and the challan has been presented in the Court. The report of the SDM Panchkula indicates a nexus between the suicide of Head Constable Jaibir Singh and the conduct of Krishan Kumar who might have taken possession of the money in the earlier part of the day. 5. Regarding the objection that the deceased was allowed to bleed to death for want of medical attention, there being a gap of 2 hours 40 minutes between the firing of the shot and the arrival of SDM Kalka who reached the spot at 9.40 p.m. and saw the dead body, there is no merit in the objection, which seems to have been made purely to derive mileage. The ballistics expert from F.S.L. Madhuban has deposed that death is instantaneous in cases of firing of a bullet by pistol from point blank range as was the case with the deceased. At another place the words "excessive bleeding" have been used in place of haemorrhage. The ballistics expert from F.S.L. Madhuban has deposed that death is instantaneous in cases of firing of a bullet by pistol from point blank range as was the case with the deceased. At another place the words "excessive bleeding" have been used in place of haemorrhage. The objector has tried to play on the words as if excessive bleeding resulted in death whereas the post-mortem report reads that the cause of death in this case was because of shock and hemorrhage due to bullet injury shot from a close range which was sufficient to cause death immediately. Medical jurisprudence also supports such a finding. A spontaneous version is of Raj Kumar, HC who has stated that he went into the room and rushed out at 8.00 p.m. saying that there was a dead body. Thus, it is clear that HC Jaibir Singh died much before 9.40 p.m. 6. Needless to say, the overall responsibility for efficient and clean functioning of a Police Station is that of the SHO. A thorough proble into the working of Malkhana and Police Station as a whole and individual liability of those in the Police Station is warranted. Nothing can be ascribed to senior officers and other mentioned in the suicide note by way of involvement in the incident. In view of the position explained above it is clear that the objections raised by the petitioner to the enquiry report of SDM Panchkula have no weight and the same deserve to be rejected." 10. It is in the light of these circumstances that we are called upon to pronounce on the necessity of having an investigation into the circumstances which forced Jaibir Singh to take his own life conducted by an agency other than the State Police lest the fairness of the same is affected even at the unconscious level by the fact that the same is likely to effect senior-most officers of the Police force. We have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rishi Pal Rana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and Ms. Ritu Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 11. 11. Rishi Pal Rana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and Ms. Ritu Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 11. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the sole grouse of Sushma is that a deliberate attempt has been made by the Investigating Agency with the aid of civil administration to block legitimate investigation into a cognizable offence on account of the fact that the persons against whom allegations are contained in the suicide note were in a position to subvert the efforts of the petitioner. It was submitted that according to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Investigating Agency has a right nay an obligation to investigate into all offences that are cognizable and any person howsoever highly placed should not be allowed to derail the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature. Seen in this background, Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior Counsel seeks to label the first inquest, the enquiry by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panchkula and the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar as attempts to frustrate the process of law which should be set at right by this Court as even the State does not at this stage dispute that the death was suicidal. Therefore, the question whether the circumstances pointed out by Sushma and her relatives in support of the allegations contained in the suicide note are only to be adjudicated upon by a criminal Court after the allegations have been gone into and the Investigating Agency file report (closure or charge-sheet) before it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 12. Therefore, the question whether the circumstances pointed out by Sushma and her relatives in support of the allegations contained in the suicide note are only to be adjudicated upon by a criminal Court after the allegations have been gone into and the Investigating Agency file report (closure or charge-sheet) before it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 12. On behalf of the State, it was asserted that the State in the present case has been more than fair and inasmuch as had got conducted the inquest by a Magistrate and a separate detailed enquiry, the report whereof runs into 44 pages, which had been given after recording 497 pages of evidence and the same has been further scrutinised by the Chief Secretary, who had found nothing wrong with the conclusion and therefore, it would be but appropriate that this Court may protect the Officers involved from the harassment which they are likely to face if called upon to answer the malicious allegations made by the grieved family to support unfounded grievances of an official, who did not even have a very clean track record. There are, according to the learned counsel for the State, hardly any circumstances which would warrant re-opening of a closed chapter by the investigating agency merely because the family is not satisfied with the conclusion of the enquiry. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. It is unfortunate that the present case has been blown out of proportions merely on account of the fact that the suicide note found in one of the socks of Jaibir Singh contained allegations against the Head of Police Force and other officials of which the deceased was a member. A thorough investigation into the circumstances which had precipitated the commission of suicide by Jaibir Singh was necessary to clear the clouds of doubt that were being cast on the functioning of the Head of the Institution. On the advice, the State Government made an endeavour in this direction by directing that inquest proceedings which are normally conducted by police officers themselves should be carried out by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalka. On the advice, the State Government made an endeavour in this direction by directing that inquest proceedings which are normally conducted by police officers themselves should be carried out by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalka. While doing so the State was probably treating the death of Jaibir Singh in the Malkhana as a death of an individual in police custody which fallacy has led to the subsequent aberrations leading to their adopting the process followed by them. It is no ones case that at the relevant time Jaibir Singh was accused of any offence and he was being detained in the Police Station. Having launched on this course, the officials thereafter tried to play down the necessity of tracing out the bullet, which had caused the fatal injury as it is no ones case that same after piercing through the head of the deceased had gone out of the Malkhana. It is unfortunate that police officers placed at the highest level who were monitoring the investigation of the case have fallen into this lapse, which had necessitated this Court passing the following order :- "After going through the record, we are prima facie of the view that the failure of the authorities to trace out the bullet, which caused fatal injuries to Jaibir, may be due to the fact that the case properties stocked in the Malkhana of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula, may not be placed in orderly manner. As Shri Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, had initially stated, on instructions from Inspector Surjit Kumar, that after the date of the incident the Malkhana had been got whitewashed, we were of the opinion that as all the case properties would have been removed while carrying out this exercise, we should call upon the authorities to indicate whether the bullet had at any later stage been traced out. Before we could pass this order Shri Patter again, on instructions from the aforesaid Inspector, indicated that at the time when the whitewashing was done, the case properties had not been removed from the Malkhana. The Inspector has further informed us that he was not posted in Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula on the date when the Malkhana was whitewashed. Before we could pass this order Shri Patter again, on instructions from the aforesaid Inspector, indicated that at the time when the whitewashing was done, the case properties had not been removed from the Malkhana. The Inspector has further informed us that he was not posted in Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula on the date when the Malkhana was whitewashed. In view of this, the learned counsel for the parties agree that as the incident has taken place inside the Malkhana, the fatal bullet would naturally be embedded/lying some where within the room. We would appreciate if the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, immediately gets a search of the Malkhana conducted for locating the bullet under his personal supervision and forward to this Court a report by tomorrow. Mr. Patter is directed to telephonically contact the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula for due compliance." in response whereto a report has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula who despite direction that the investigation should be conducted under his supervision for reasons not disclosed chose to mark the supervision of investigation to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Despite all this, we would like to bring on record the appreciation of the efforts of the State to try to satisfy the aggrieved relations by holding a detailed enquiry by the Executive Magistrate. As already indicated by us herein-before, the Magistrate after recording the evidence had given a very inconclusive report regarding the cause of death which according to the petitioner was attributable to the harassment suffered by her husband at the hands of the officers/officials names of whom have been mentioned in the suicide note. It is in the light of these circumstances, this Court is called upon to examine the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with the investigation into a cognizable offence while empowering the State to have an enquiry conducted into the circumstances which led to the death by the Executive Magistrate. Section 154 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "154. Section 154 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "154. 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 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 shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence." obliges the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station to reduce into writing every information which reaches him regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. 15 The grouse of the petitioner is that though from the suicide note, which was found in one of the socks of the deceased, it was evident that Jaibir Singh had been instigated to take his own life by the acts of the persons mentioned therein yet the Officer-in-charge of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula thought it proper not to reduce that part of the note into writing and not to investigate the matter probably on account of the personalities involved in it. His immediate superiors too did not think it appropriate to rectify his lapse and chose to shirk their responsibility by requesting that an inquest be held by a Magistrate. The matter did not stop out here as the senior officers of the Range as well as the Head of the Institution opted for the same course of action. His immediate superiors too did not think it appropriate to rectify his lapse and chose to shirk their responsibility by requesting that an inquest be held by a Magistrate. The matter did not stop out here as the senior officers of the Range as well as the Head of the Institution opted for the same course of action. In the process the obligation to carry out the investigation as per Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. which reads as under :- "156. Police Officers power to investigate cognizable cases :- (1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII." wherein according to our humble opinion the word "may" will have to be read as "shall" was not complied with as is the mandate of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383 (SC) : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, the relevant portion whereof reads as under :- "29. The legal mandate enshrined in Section 154(1) is that every information relating to the commission of a "cognizable offence" (as defined under Section 2(c) of the Code) if given orally (in which case it is to be reduced into writing) or in writing to "an officer in charge of a police station" (within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code) and signed by the informant should be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe which form is commonly called as "First Information Report" and which act of entering the information in the said form is known as registration of a crime or a case. 30. At the state of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of a Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157 : (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested on him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence, reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code. 31. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression "information" without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and "credible information" are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, `reasonableness or `credibility of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word "information" without qualifying the said word. In other words, `reasonableness or `credibility of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word "information" without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act XXV of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that `every complaint or information preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was subsequently modified by Section 12 of the Code of 1872 (Act X of 1872) which thereafter read `every complaint preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced into writing. The word `complaint which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word `information was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1955 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 190(c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 11 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. 32. 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." One thing is clear that it was in the handling of a cognizable offence which is alleged to have been committed within the Police Station that the Police authorities went astray. 16 The State Government on its part was satisfied by ordering a detailed enquiry, which possibly matches any trial in thoroughness given the prolixity with which the same was conducted. The enquiry, which has been conducted could only fall within the purview of Section 176 Cr.P.C. which reads as under :- "176. 16 The State Government on its part was satisfied by ordering a detailed enquiry, which possibly matches any trial in thoroughness given the prolixity with which the same was conducted. The enquiry, which has been conducted could only fall within the purview of Section 176 Cr.P.C. which reads as under :- "176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death :- (1) When any person dies while in the custody of the police or when the case is of the nature referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 174, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 174, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence. (2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any manner hereinafter prescribed according to the circumstances of the case. (3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person who has been already interred, in order to discover the cause of hid death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined. (4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry." The language of the aforesaid section makes it clear that the enquiry is in addition to the investigation, which is to be conducted under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and not as a substitute thereto as has been held in Piara Singh v. The State and another, AIR 1958 Punjab 430, which reads as under :- "(7) I regret I am unable to hold that a case has been made out for the transfer of this proceeding. In the first place an investigation under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure occupies no higher position than a coroners inquest although by virtue of a definition appearing in the body of the code it has been dignified to the status of a legal proceeding. In the first place an investigation under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure occupies no higher position than a coroners inquest although by virtue of a definition appearing in the body of the code it has been dignified to the status of a legal proceeding. A Magistrate holding an enquiry under this section acts purely in an executive capacity, for he is required only to ascertain the cause of death and not to establish the rights of the parties. His authority thus lacks the first element of judicial power. Proceedings at an inquest are intended to be merely a preliminary investigation and not a trial involving the merits. The result of the enquiry is not binding upon any one and cannot be regarded as a judgment. It is wholly immaterial as far as Courts are concerned whether this enquiry is held by one executive officer or another, for even if a false accusation is brought against the petitioner and his friends they will have ample opportunity of refuting the charges if and when a criminal case is instituted in a Court of law." 17. Furthermore, it is also evident that any adjudication under Section 176 Cr.P.C. in no way decides the right of the parties and cannot by any stretch of imagination be substituted for the trial which a person may have to face if a closure report is not filed by the Police. We say this because while assuming jurisdiction under Section 176 Cr.P.C. neither the Magistrate is called upon to hold an inquest nor the Magistrate appointed for holding an enquiry would be empowered to adjudicate upon the complaint which is evinced in the suicide note that the deceased was committing suicide on account of the conditions created by the persons mentioned therein. Such an adjudication as to whether abetment as envisaged under Section 107 IPC in case of suicide note, which would be per se admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, would only be possible by a Court of law and, therefore, entire exercise which does not have any judicial ramification is clearly misconceived. This view of ours is supported by the observations contained in Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kuldip Singh v. State (Delhi), 1994(2) RCR(Criminal) 498, wherein it has been observed as under :- "33. This view of ours is supported by the observations contained in Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kuldip Singh v. State (Delhi), 1994(2) RCR(Criminal) 498, wherein it has been observed as under :- "33. The conferment of absolute and uncanalised discretion to the police to register a cognizable offence or not, would be violative of equality clause enshrined in our Constitution. The Code vests power in Judiciary to control the discretion of the police. The judiciary will remain unaware in absence of recording of First Information Report. Whenever Police Officer after recording of the First Information Report has a reasonable doubt about the commission of a cognizable offence, he has power not to proceed with the investigation but that is subject to check by judiciary. There is rapid increase of custody deaths and deaths during encounter with law enforcing agency. It is the duty of all organs including Judiciary to protect human rights and, therefore, it is necessary to provide safeguards for early recording of the crime and control of police by judiciary which would be negated if it is left to the police to decide in which case to register the crime on disclosure of commission of cognizable offence and in which defer it pending enquiry. 34. In our view the legal position is clear that on information being laid before the Police about the commission of a cognizable offence the Police has no option but to register the case and then to proceed with investigation of the case under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. The police can also decide not to investigate in terms contemplated by Section 157(1) of the Code. The Police has no right to refuse registration of a case on information being laid before it about commission of cognizable offence and instead proceed with an enquiry and refuse registration as a result of the said enquiry. If it is left to be determined by the Police to decide in which cases of disclosure of commission of cognizable offence it would first hold preliminary enquiry and then decide to register or not to register the case, it would also lead to delay in registration of the crime and in the meantime the material evidence may not be available. The conduct of enquiry itself may entail a long period. There may be then challenge to the said enquiry. The conduct of enquiry itself may entail a long period. There may be then challenge to the said enquiry. The enquiry of the nature suggested by the respondents is not permissible in law." 18. In view of this, the observations made by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panchkula as well as Chief Secretary, Haryana regarding whether a case of abetment of suicide has been made out or not would amount to assumption of jurisdiction, though well meaning, which law does not vest in either of the officers. 19. Having come to this conclusion, if it was possible for us to prevent the logical fall out of this series of errors, which to our mind might have been bona fidely committed by the State Government while handling the incident relating to the death of Jaibir Singh as a result of an effort to pacify the aggrieved relations, by not setting back the clock to the stage envisaged by Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., we would have been only glad to grab at any alternative available if we were sure that on account of passage of time the animosity which originally existed between the parties might have evaporated by now. We would also have endeavoured to avoid that course as actions of a number of civil servants may come under scrutiny which would may also upset the functioning of the State. We are also aware of the fact that there is a change of the Government which necessarily brings about in our democratic set up a change of guard at all levels of civil servants, even though ideally it is the civil services alone which would provide continuity to governance after the advent on scene of new political Masters but in view of the fact that course adopted by the administration does not have any legal sanction the same cannot be ignored. It is in this view of the matter alone, with great reluctance, we deem it appropriate to entrust the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, a central authority outside the State of Haryana as the possibility of its being influenced on account of the personalities involved would be too remote. We, therefore, request the Central Bureau of Investigation to take charge of the case and complete investigation at the earliest. We, therefore, request the Central Bureau of Investigation to take charge of the case and complete investigation at the earliest. We sincerely hope that needful would be done as expeditiously as possible in a manner, which does not unnecessarily impinge upon the dignity of all involved. Furthermore, taking into consideration that allegations have been levelled against the senior officers of the Police Force of the State, we deem it proper to request the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to consider the advisability of having the investigation conducted under the direct supervision of a Joint Director. Order accordingly.