JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition has been made for the purpose of quashing the First Information Report registered as case crime No. 52 of 2006, under Sections 306 IPC and 3/2/5 of S.C.S.T. Act, P.S. Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 2. The First Information Report (hereinafter called as F.I.R.) speaks that one Shivnath, son of respondent No. 3, had allegedly committed suicide near his house. Thereafter the respondent No. 3, moved an application before respondent No. 2 i.e. Station House Officer, Aurai on 6.2.2006 making application that victim i.e. his son came out from his house at 12.00 P.M. in the night due to nature’s call but did not return and in the morning his dead body was found hanging from a mango tree. He alleged that some persons have committed murder of his son and made application when police endorsed the case crime on 11.2.2006 against four persons. The petitioners are named in the application. According to them no signature of the informant was there in the application. However, police had started harassing them without any cogent reason. They are apprehending for their arrest. 3. On 8.3.2006 the petitioners moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) alleging that the police is harassing the petitioners and warned to arrest the petitioners as per the case diary regarding involvement. After moving the application, the Court concerned called for the record from the police and fixed the date for submission of the same on 9.3.2006. On 9.3.2006 police had submitted report to the Court concerned stating therein that the petitioners are involved in case crime No. 52 of 2006. Petitioners applied for certified copy of the F.I.R. from the concerned Court on the same day but from the note on the requisition made by a staff of the Court it appeared that FIR is not available to the office of the Court. 4. Petitioners have strongly relied upon Sections 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C. which are set out hereunder : “154. 4. Petitioners have strongly relied upon Sections 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C. which are set out hereunder : “154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every information relating to the commission of a 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 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. 157. 157. Procedure for investigation.—(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender : Provided that— (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; (b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section, and in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.” 5. According to the petitioners neither the application, which was made the case crime by the police duly signed by the complainant as per the provision of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. nor a certified copy of the F.I.R. was made available by the Magistrate to the petitioners in compliance of Sections 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, complaint as made by the respondent No. 3 is non est in the eyes of law. 6. 6. According to us, in the rarest of the rare case whenever any question arose before the Court for quashing the F.I.R. we follow the guidelines given in AIR 1992 SC 604 , State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others. Out of the conditions therein one of the important condition is under Clause-6, as follows : “Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.” 7. Therefore, we have to see at first what are the infirmities in not putting signature to the information, if any. As per AIR 1973 SC 1 : 1973 Cr.LJ. 185 (Aprel Joseph v. State of Kerala) receipt and recording of F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion a criminal investigation. Normally General Diary cannot be treated to be F.I.R. But a General Diary entry may be treated as an F.I.R. in an appropriate case, where it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence as per ratio of 2003 Cr.L.J. 2322 (SC) (Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. v. Tapan Kumar Singh). Therefore, we can arrive at an appropriate conclusion, if we visualize the above two analysis of the Supreme Court in the matter itself. Police is concerned about information and making investigation. There is no bar for the police if any information is given orally relating to cognizable offence. Informations under Section 154, Cr.P.C. can only be reduced in writing in respect of the F.I.R. Every information relating to commission of cognizable offence, if given orally, shall be reduced in writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, which shall be signed by a person given it. But it cannot defeat the cause of investigation by the police authority, if such alleged F.I.R. is not signed. It may be signed subsequently. It cannot debar the police from making any investigation. Without signature it cannot be debarred from considering the General Diary but General Diary in respect of a cognizable offence. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination such application without signature can be considered as not giving information, if any. It may be signed subsequently. It cannot debar the police from making any investigation. Without signature it cannot be debarred from considering the General Diary but General Diary in respect of a cognizable offence. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination such application without signature can be considered as not giving information, if any. Suppose on the basis of anonymous information police proceeded and subsequently found some other materials and informations and the same if reduced in writing or written in writing with signature, the same will be sufficient to substantiate the sufficient cause. Therefore, not having signature on the complaint, if any, is not an illegality but an irregularity, if any, which can be cured subsequently. Hence, for the same police cannot be restrained from making any investigation. 8. Further, the petitioners have already applied in the Court of concerned Magistrate for the purpose of obtaining report from the police, which has been submitted. Now it is for the Magistrate on receiving such report to direct for an investigation or if he thinks fit may depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold preliminary enquiry, or otherwise to dispose of the case, in the manner provided in the Code. Obtaining or not obtaining certified copy of the F.I.R. as mentioned by the concerned clerk of the office of the Magistrate on 18th March, 2006 has got nothing to do with regard to quashing of F.I.R. by this Court. It is for the petitioners to proceed further before that Magistrate for the purpose of availability of certified copy of the F.I.R. when the report has already been submitted before the Magistrate. Moreover, inspite of non-availability of certified copy, how the petitioners received a copy without signature when their own case is that certified copy is not available in the Court of the concerned Magistrate, is also unknown to this Court. From the report filed by the police it appears that the petitioners are not only associated with instant case crime but also from before. Therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the F.I.R. particularly when the petitioners’ own case is that F.I.R. does not exist. Since petitioners themselves have applied before the Magistrate and report has also been submitted before the Magistrate, it is proper for the petitioners to surrender before the Court of magistrate and to obtain an order of bail. Since petitioners themselves have applied before the Magistrate and report has also been submitted before the Magistrate, it is proper for the petitioners to surrender before the Court of magistrate and to obtain an order of bail. The writ Court should not unnecessarily interfere with such type of matters where on the basis of the report Magistrate has to take decision under Section 159 of Cr.P.C. 9. Thus, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. No order is passed as to costs. Honble Shiv Shanker, J.—I agree. ———