JUDGMENT :- Some time in the year 1996, the petitioner had filed two complaints one before the concerned police station and another before the higher Officer. The complainants are dated 25-1-1996 and 3-2-1996. As no cognizance was taken, the present writ petition has been filed on 26-3-1996 immediately within the reasonable time. The present writ petition was admitted on 15-4-1996. The Court has directed the concerned Police Officer to file affidavit regarding the investigation, which he had carried out on the complaint made by the complainant for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. 2. At the time of final hearing the respondent has filed affidavit dated 28-6-2006 and basically submitted that on enquiry being made, no case was made out the theft of misappropriation and therefore, no cognizance of offence was taken. The detailed affidavit has been filed even on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however, resisted the same by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors. ( 2006(2) Supreme 243 : 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1187 (S.C.) wherein it is observed as under :"We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provision of Section 154( 1) t of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that the High Court erred in law in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the contempt petition was pending and the appellant had an alternative remedy. The ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against the Police Officer." 3. Admittedly, no offence has been registered though the complaint is for the cognizable offence. In view of the above clear position of law and fact, there is no point now directing the petitioner to file private complaint as contended by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Admittedly, no offence has been registered though the complaint is for the cognizable offence. In view of the above clear position of law and fact, there is no point now directing the petitioner to file private complaint as contended by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Considering the averments made in the petition as well as in the complaint, the respondent State is directed to register the offence and proceed with the matter of investigation in accordance with law and the matter of investigation in accordance, with law and pass appropriate orders and/or take the decision accordingly. The respondents are expected to dispose of the complaint within a reasonable time. Let it be clear that. this does not mean that the investigating agency should be influenced by the order passed by this Court. The Investigating agency are free to take decision uninfluenced by the order of this Court, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. In view of the above this writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.