Judgment :- The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register a case in respect of the murder of one Mr.Munusami on 111. 2004 and transfer the case to CBCID for investigation. 2. The factual matrix as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as under:- .(a) The petitioner is the son of one Mr. Munusami, a member of a Political party as well as a social activist. The said Munusami was a witness in two murder cases involving one Munusamy, Chinnasami, Ramachandran, Rowdy Babu and Kandasamy, all residents of Thadangam Village. The local Inspector of Police Mr. Francis was also involved in the said murder of one Saravanan and as no action was taken to investigate the two murder cases, the deceased Munusami reportedly made complaints to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem, requesting him to initiate action against the accused, followed by representation to the higher officials in the administration. The said Munusami also requested for police protection as he was apprehending attack from the accused on account of his preferring complaint against them. The said Munusami was also a witness in the kidnap as well as murder of one Gowran by the very same accused involved in the murder of Mr. Saravanan and all these activities were supported by the local Inspector of Police Mr. Francis. .(b) Subsequently, on 111. 2004, the petitioner came to know of the murder of his father Munusami and before his arrival and without taking any attempt to inform the relatives, the body of the Petitioners father was buried. The petitioner has reason to believe that it was a brutal murder committed by the accused involved in the murder of Saravanan and Gowran, assisted by the Inspector of Police Mr. Francis. The petitioner had made complaint to the Human Rights Commission and it was registered as case No.8037/2004, and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. There was also an agitation by CPI (M) members and since no attempt was made to investigate the offence of murder, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition. 3. Francis. The petitioner had made complaint to the Human Rights Commission and it was registered as case No.8037/2004, and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. There was also an agitation by CPI (M) members and since no attempt was made to investigate the offence of murder, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third Respondent, it was stated that the deceased Munusami was in the habit of giving unnecessary troubles, by sending false Petitions to various authorities against higher officials including the Collector and the Superintendent of Police. The allegation regarding the alleged murder were all denied. It was further stated that during the year 2002, there were 17 cases of suspicious death which were registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and all the deceased were identified. Similarly, the death of Mr. Saravanan was also investigated. The said case was not a murder, as the Doctor who conducted postmortem has opined that the deceased was hit by a moving automobile vehicle and the case was ultimately referred as "undetected". It was also projected in the counter that the deceased Munusami was having illicit affair with another lady which resulted in his marriage with the said lady and a child was also born in the said marriage and as such, the petitioner was in inimical terms with the deceased and as such, there was no iota of truth in the grievance of the petitioner. .4. With respect to the death of Munusami, it was stated in the counter that the body was found at Mookanur Village and a case was registered in Cr.No.495/2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C on the file of Mathikonpalayam Police Station on 111. 2004 on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Village Administrative Officer. Inquest was made at 10.30 a.m., within 1½ hours of registration of the complaint and the body was subjected to postmortem and the report submitted by the authorities shows that the death was due to severe alcohol poisoning. In such circumstances, the third Respondent contended that the death was only on account of severe alcohol poisoning and it was not a case of murder, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. Mr. In such circumstances, the third Respondent contended that the death was only on account of severe alcohol poisoning and it was not a case of murder, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. Mr. V. Chandrakanthan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the averment made in the counter to the effect that there were 17 cases of unnatural death in the year 2002 within the jurisdiction of a particular police station shows that everything was not well in the jurisdiction of Adiyamankottai Police Station and there were no serious attempt made to find out the actual cause of death of all the 17 persons. With respect to the death of Munusami, it was the contention of the learned Counsel that even before the relatives of the deceased arrived at the place, the body was subjected to postmortem and it was also buried under the pretext that the body was decomposed. 6. The learned Counsel further contended that the whole enquiry was a make belief affair and the respondents have not taken serious attempt to investigate the matter so as to clear the doubt as to whether the case was one of suicide or murder. In case the case of Munusami is taken along with the death of 17 other persons as well as the death of Saravanan in respect of which complaint was preferred by the deceased Munusami, it would be evident that the concerned police never investigated cases relating to unnatural death and the matter was taken in a routine manner and as such, learned Counsel prayed for registration of a case and further investigation. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that no direction could be given to the police to register a case and to conduct investigation by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and as such, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. .8. The counter affidavit filed by the third Respondent in the present Writ Petition reveals a very sorry state of affairs inasmuch as there were 17 cases of unnatural death reported before the Adiyamankottai Police station in the year 2002 alone and all these cases were treated as undetected or referred to on other grounds. There is a specific allegation in the Writ Petition that the death of Mr. There is a specific allegation in the Writ Petition that the death of Mr. Sarvanan was not an unnatural death, but was a murder committed by some of the anti social elements of the locality in connivance with the local Inspector of Police Mr. Francis. From the counter affidavit filed by the third Respondent, it is evident that the said Saravanan would have died due to hit by a moving vehicle. The said opinion was given by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. However, the counter is silent about the investigation taken to verify as to whether it was really a murder or they have closed the case by giving the colour of accidental death. When there were 17 cases of unnatural death reported before a particular police station in 2002 itself, Superior Officers like the third Respondent cannot be heard to say in a very casual manner that all the cases were undetected, by simply approving the report submitted by the fourth Respondent. Even though in the counter affidavit filed by the third Respondent there was an attempt to project as if the deceased was a trouble maker in the locality, no serious attempt appears to have been made to investigate the circumstances leading to his death and it was simply rejected as a case of death due to alcohol poisoning. The report of chemical examiner as well as postmortem report shows that the deceased had died of severe alcohol poisoning. It could have also been an involuntary act, inasmuch as others could have also compelled the deceased to take alcohol against his wish. Even if the deceased was a mischief monger, nobody got the licence to murder him and the police also cannot escape under the pretext that death was only due to severe alcohol poisoning. 9. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was clearly indicated that the body of Munusami was buried by the police on 111. 2004 itself and the burial was done even before his relative Madhu, who was informed by the police, came to the place. When there was a specific complaint made by the petitioner with respect to the death of his father as well as the agitation and dharna by the local people contending that the death was one of murder, responsible officers like the third respondent should have bestowed their personal attention in the matter. 10. When there was a specific complaint made by the petitioner with respect to the death of his father as well as the agitation and dharna by the local people contending that the death was one of murder, responsible officers like the third respondent should have bestowed their personal attention in the matter. 10. However, it is also to be seen as to whether this Court can order investigation of the matter by calling upon the police to register First Information Report and to direct a particular agency to conduct the investigation. 11. Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with information to the police and their power for investigation. Section 154 of the Code mandates the police to register an F.I.R. in case of furnishing information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. No particular format of complaint is mentioned in the said provision. The complaint need not be given in writing also and in case it was an oral complaint, the officer receiving such information shall reduce the same in writing either by himself or by any other person on his direction and such complaint shall be read over to the informant and after taking his signature, gist of the complaint has to be recorded in the register of First Information Report maintained by the concerned Police Station as per the format prescribed by the concerned government. Section 154 (2) provides that copy of such information recorded by the police officer shall be given free of cost to the informant. 12. Therefore the main object of lodging the FIR is for the purpose of setting the criminal law in motion and such registration of FIR enables the investigating officer to initiate the process of investigation and to file a final report after such investigation, under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Section 154 speaks only about the information to be furnished to the officer in charge of a police station and nowhere it has been said that the report should be given only by a person having personal knowledge of the commission of offence. On receipt of such information mandatory duty is cast on the police officer to register an FIR and the police officer was not expected to conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the truth or otherwise of the information furnished by the complainant. 13. On receipt of such information mandatory duty is cast on the police officer to register an FIR and the police officer was not expected to conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the truth or otherwise of the information furnished by the complainant. 13. In case the police officer in charge of police station refuses to record the information given by a complainant in respect of a cognizable offence, a specific remedy is provided under Sec. 154(3) of Cr.p.C. In such cases the complainant is given an option to send the complaint in writing to the concerned Superintendent of police by post and on such receipt of complaint disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, duty is cast on the Superintendent of Police either to investigate the case himself or to direct any of the police officers under him to investigate the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Code and in case of such delegation, the said officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of police station in relation to such investigation. Therefore the statute expects the police officer to act swiftly on receipt of a complaint with respect to a cognizable offence and in case of their failure, superior officers of police have been entrusted with the work of recording such information and to conduct investigation. .14. The Superintendent of police is given the choice in the matter of such investigation either by the concerned police and he is also empowered to authorize any of the police officers subordinate to him to conduct the investigation and in case he authorizes such investigation, the investigation conducted by such officers would amount to investigation conducted by the concerned police in whose jurisdiction the offence is stated to have been committed. 15. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Provides for information in respect of non cognizable offence and as per the said provision, the police is expected to enter the substance of the information so received in the book kept for the said purpose and refer the informant to the Magistrate and in case the Magistrate directs the police to register an FIR, the police shall register the FIR and in such cases the investigation conducted by them shall be deemed to be an investigation conducted in respect of a cognizable offence. 16. 16. The authority of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence commences immediately on receipt of information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. Sec. 157 deals with the procedure for investigation and it would be open to the police to initiate investigation on the basis of the information received under sec.154 or receipt of information from any other source and in all such cases they have to register an FIR and a copy of such FIR should be forwarded immediately to the concerned magistrate through their superior officers as the state government may by general or special order appoints in that behalf. 17. A combined reading of the provisions as contained in chapter XII and more particularly Sec.154 and 156 shows that the police have got a statutory right to conduct investigation in respect of a cognizable offence and the power of the police to investigate cognizable offence is unfettered and even the magistrate cannot direct the police to conduct the investigation in a particular manner. They are having free hand in the matter of investigation subject to the supervisory powers to be exercised by the superior officers in relation to such investigation. .18. In the event of failure of the police to register an FIR and to investigate the matter it is open to the complainant to prefer a complaint to the magistrate. On a perusal of the complaint the magistrate was of the view that the averments contained in the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence it would be open to the magistrate to forward the complaint to the concerned police for investigation as provided under Sec.156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In case the Magistrate resorts to the process of forwarding the matter to the police for the purpose of investigation, there was no requirement to take cognizance of the offence in as much as the question of cognizance comes only after the conclusion of investigation by the police and their submission of report under Sec.173 of the Cr.P.C. 19. After the conclusion of investigation, the officer in charge of the police station shall submit the final report under Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C., before the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate is expected to look into the final report and in case the magistrate disagrees with the findings of the investigation officer it would be open to him to direct the police to conduct further investigation. The Magistrate is expected to look into the final report and in case the magistrate disagrees with the findings of the investigation officer it would be open to him to direct the police to conduct further investigation. Even in cases where investigation is ordered by the magistrate under Sec.156(3), the magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the matter subsequently under Sec.190(i)(b) and the Magistrate is not concerned with the report of the police officer absolving the accused of the charges. 20. Therefore the criminal procedure code is a self contained code and the police officer having been given a major role to play in such matter must exercise their function with a sense of social duty and social commitment inasmuch as the crime is essential not only against the individual, but is primarily against the society. 21. As observed by the Apex Court in B.K. Basus case reported in ( 1997 (1) SCC 416 ), the police in India have to perform a very difficult and delicate task particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, political turmoil, terrorist activities and increasing underworld act as well as armed gang and criminals. Society expects much from the police force and in case they fail to rise to the occasion, resultant danger to the safety and security to the people as well as to the property would be beyond imagination. New concept of home policing or police at your door step as well as launching of mobile police station will not serve the purpose unless the police makes changes in their very outlook and approaches to the issues with a sense of social responsibility. In case of failure to register the case under some pretext or the other, the ultimate beneficiary will be the muscleman in the locality, commonly known as kata panchayat ever ready to deliver quick justice on the basis of hidden dealings where quid pro quo is the basic principle as well as the essential item of contract. The Apex Court had time and again called upon the police to register FIR immediately on receipt of complaint without dragging the complainant from pillar to post. .22. Recently in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008(11) Scale 154), the Apex Court criticized the lethargic attitude of the police in the matter of registration of FIR and observed thus:- ."3. .... .22. Recently in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008(11) Scale 154), the Apex Court criticized the lethargic attitude of the police in the matter of registration of FIR and observed thus:- ."3. .... in spite of law laid down by this Court, the police authorities concerned do not register FIRs unless some direction is given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the High Court or this Court. Further, experience shows that even after orders are passed by the Courts concerned for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps and when matters are brought to the notice of the inspecting Judges of the High Court during the course of inspection of the Courts and Superintendents of Police are taken to task, then only FIRs are registered. In a large number of cases investigation do not commence even after registration of FIRs and in a case like the present one, steps are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped person or apprehending the accused person with reasonable dispatch. At times it has been found that when harsh orders are passed by the members of the judiciary in a State, the police become hostile to them, for instance, in Bihar when a bail Petition filed by a police personnel, who was the accused was rejected by a member of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service, he was assaulted in the courtroom for which contempt proceeding was initiated in the Patna High Court and the erring police officials were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment." 23. In Lalita Kumaris case cited supra, the Apex Court as per order dated 14th July, 2008 directed issue of notice to the Chief Secretary of all the States and Union Territories and the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police as the case may be to show cause as to why the direction contained in the said order be not given. The proposed direction as contained in paragraph 5 of the order reads thus:- "6. The proposed direction as contained in paragraph 5 of the order reads thus:- "6. In view of the above, we feel that it is high time to give directions to the Governments of all the States and Union Territories besides their Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint Petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the FIRs to the complainants, within twenty-four hours of receipt/production of copy of such orders. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties, which were the subject-matter of theft or dacoity. In case FIRs are not registered within the aforementioned time, and/or aforementioned steps are not taken by the police, the Magistrate concerned would be justified in initiating contempt proceeding against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders if no sufficient cause is shown and awarding stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them inasmuch as the disciplinary authority would be quite justified in initiating departmental proceeding and suspending them in contemplation of the same." 24. In a recent Judgment in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in ( 2008(3) Scale 532 ), the Apex Court considered the issue as to whether the High Court can set the law in motion against named or unnamed individuals on the basis of information received by the Court in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the Apex Court indicated that when there was a specific procedure contained in a particular enactment, the aggrieved party has to take recourse to the provisions of such enactment and the Writ Petition is not the remedy in case police fails to take action in spite of information given to them. 25. In the said case, the Apex Court indicated that when there was a specific procedure contained in a particular enactment, the aggrieved party has to take recourse to the provisions of such enactment and the Writ Petition is not the remedy in case police fails to take action in spite of information given to them. 25. In Divine Retreat Centres case cited supra, the Apex Court reiterated the earlier view of the Supreme Court that in case of failure on the part of the police to take action on the basis of the complaint, the remedy of the aggrieved party is only to prefer a complaint and observed thus: "36. Even in cases where no action is taken by the police on the information given to them, the informants remedy lies under Sections 190, 200 Cr.P.C., but a Writ Petition in such a case is not to be entertained. This Court in Gangadhar Janardhan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ 2004 (7) SCC 768 ], held: "When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) V. union of India [ 1996 (11) SCC 582 ]. It was specifically observed that a Writ Petition in such cases is not to be entertained." 26. The petitioner has approached this Court directly without exhausting the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was specifically observed that a Writ Petition in such cases is not to be entertained." 26. The petitioner has approached this Court directly without exhausting the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case the police fail to take action on the basis of his complaint, it is open to him to file a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and in the event of failure on the part of the police to register the FIR, or to alter the earlier First Information Report registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate with a private complaint and the Magistrate is empowered to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. 27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned police station for the purpose of lodging a complaint. In case of failure to register the complaint by the police, it would be open to the petitioner to move the concerned Magistrate for appropriate reliefs. 28. It is appropriate to invite the attention of the Magistrates as well as police to take note of the following directions of the Supreme Court of India as contained in para 5 of the order dated 08th August 2008 in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. (2008 (11) Scale 157):- "5. Let order dated 14th July, 2008, and this order be put on the website of the Supreme Court of India so that the people of India may know what directions have been given by this Court and they may take appropriate steps in case of any inaction on the part of the concerned officer of the police station in instituting a case and the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall take action in a case of inaction upon filing of complaint Petition and give direction to institute the case within the time directed in the said order failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall not only initiate action against the delinquent police officer but punish them suitably by sending them to jail, in case the cause shown is found to be unsatisfactory. Apart from this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall report the matter to the disciplinary authority at once by fax as well upon receipt of which the disciplinary authority shall suspend the concerned police officer immediately in contemplation of departmental proceeding". (Emphasis added).