JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J: This appeal is by non-parties in W.P.No. 40093/2008 which was a Writ Petition filed by the fourth respondent in this appeal seeking for issue of directions to the Police Sub-inspector, Market Police Station, Bidar District and Superintendent of Police, Bidar District to register the complaint said to have been lodged with the Market Police Station, Bidar but which had not been registered there. 2. The learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned order and recording the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, issued direction to the respondents to register the complaint as per law. 3. It is aggrieved by this Order dated 18.8.2008, the present writ appeal by the appellants contending inter alia that the order could not have been passed when they had not been impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition and that the order has the effect of affecting their interest and they should have been arrayed as necessary parties to the writ petition and that the order passed without giving opportunity to the appellants is nullity in the eye of law etc. 4. The appellants had filed leave application to prosecute the appeal as they were not parties in the Writ Petition and the order passed therein affects their interest. Such leave has been granted by this Court. 5. The writ appeal had been admitted on 16.9.2008 and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge had been stayed as per order dated 16.9.2008 and the interim order had been further extended on 14.11.2008 and though the matter was in the hearing list at the request of Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, it was directed to be listed for orders as learned Counsel for the appellants moved the Court submitting that the interim order is likely to expire and it is to be extended. 6. The matter has been taken up today for hearing. 7. Sri K. Appa Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 who is the complainant and the Writ Petitioner submitted that the main matter itself can be disposed of instead of extending the interim order any further. The learned Counsel for the appellants is also agreeable for this course of action. In the circumstances, we have taken up this writ appeal for final disposal. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants is also agreeable for this course of action. In the circumstances, we have taken up this writ appeal for final disposal. 8. Submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants a apart from the fact that the order is not tenable for want of opportunity to the appellants is that the complaint was without substance; that the Writ Petitioner had himself indulged in certain acts of forgery and falsification of records and that in fact on the complaint lodged by the Writ Petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Bidar District, the Superintendent of Police, Bidar had taken action by directing the concerned Police Inspector at the Station to examine the matter and report and even a report has already been submitted to the Superintendent; that the outcome of the report has also been intimated to the Writ Petitioner and in such circumstances, there was absolutely no necessity to issue a direction at the instance of the Writ Petitioner and that the Writ Petitioner has suppressed all such developments particularly as report of the concerned Inspector of the Market Police Station had been submitted to the Superintendent of Police of Bidar even as early as on 20.12.2007 with a copy marked to the Writ Petitioner. It is submitted that in such circumstances, there was absolutely no justification to issue direction as sought for in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition should have been dismissed. 9. Sri. Appa Rao, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent / Writ Petitioner on the other hand submits that the writ has been rightly issued; that there was inaction on the part of the Station House Officer by not registering the first information report given by the Writ Petitioner complainant and that it discloses commission of cognizable offence particularly as the Writ Petitioner had attributed act of cheating to the respondents and it is only because the complaint had not been registered at the jurisdictional 'Police Station, the Writ Petitioner had approached this Court for a writ or direction and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ appeal. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. A writ of mandamus can be issued if a legal right of a citizen is denied by any authority which has a corresponding duty to act, for the exercise of the right by the citizen. 11. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. A writ of mandamus can be issued if a legal right of a citizen is denied by any authority which has a corresponding duty to act, for the exercise of the right by the citizen. 11. In the instant case, we bind that any information given by any person complaining of commission of an offence is an information, which is required to be reduced to writing in terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code' for short). If the information discloses possible commission of cognizable offence, the Police themselves can, not only register but also cause investigation and on being satisfied about the existence of commission of the cognizable offence can forward a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate along with copy of list information report. If the information discloses commission of noncognizable offence permission has to be taken by jurisdictional Magistrate for investigation. 12. In the instant case, we find that the complaint of this nature definitely a cognizable one. But, we do not find any 'positive assertion with commensurate evidence in this matter to indicate that a complaint of this had been lodged at the jurisdictional Police Station before the relief was sought for in writ jurisdiction. 13. On our questioning Sri. Appa Rao, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent has drawn our attention to Annexure-C to the writ Petition, which is a complaint to the Superintendent of Police of Bidar ,dated 25.10.2007 and learned Counsel would draw our attention to the end of this complaint wherein copies are marked to Superintendent of police and New Town Police Station Bidar. Our attention is also drawn to yet another complaint also addressed to the Superintendent of Police via,: Annexure- D to the Writ Petition dated 23.7.2008. 14. But none of these materials discloses that a formal complaint/information had in fact been lodged at the New Town Police Station, Bidar in the first instance and for failure on the part of the officer in charge to act on the complaint a complaint in terms of Section 154(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure had been lodged with the Superintendent of Police. 15. 15. It gives us an impression that the writ petitioner had in fact directly approached the Superintendent of Police by-passing the procedure under Section 154(1) which could have led to the Station House Officer furnishing a copy of the information as recorded at the Station to the informant. 16. The main complaint of the writ petitioner is that the complaint was neither registered nor the complainant was given a copy of first information report. 17. While it is true that in our system, it is not easy for any complainant to either get the information furnished to the Station House of officer in the form of a complaint to be promptly registered in the first information register or to get a copy of it. We cannot presume, that it will be the case in all situations. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued unless there is a demand for exercise of right and there is corresponding failure of duty on the part of the Officer or authority who was bound to perform, in terms of a statutory duty. If the Writ Petitioner had not even lodged the first information report in terms of Section 154(1) with the jurisdictional Police and at the police Station, the question of Station House Officer not acting on that and not issuing a copy of first information report in terms of Section 154(2) does not arise. Section 154 of the Code 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 . (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." 18. In the absence of such basic requirement, we find that no case had been made out by the writ petitioner for issue of a writ of mandamus. That apart, we find from the additional papers placed before the Court by the appellants that the Superintendent of Police had acted on the complaint that he had received directly from the writ petitioner and had called upon the concerned Police official of the Station to submit a report and the concerned official had also submitted a report after looking into the matter. A copy of the report to the Superintendent of Police; Bidar dated 20.12.2007 is produced as Annexure-E along with the writ appeal. 19. In this view of the development, no inaction can be inferred even on the part of the Superintendent of Police. Neither the jurisdictional Police can be said to be inactive nor the Superintendent of Police. If such is the fact situation, there is no occasion for this Court to issue any direction as had been done by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order. 20. We are also in agreement with the submission of Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the Writ Petition should not have been entertained in the absence of the necessary parties particularly as a direction of this nature would have some implication on the interest of the appellants. For both these reasons, we find the impugned order is not sustainable. 21. Accordingly, this writ appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. 22. For both these reasons, we find the impugned order is not sustainable. 21. Accordingly, this writ appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. 22. However, it is open for the writ petitioner to pursue his rights and remedies independently in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Code irrespective of the out come of this appeal.