JUDGMENT (1) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed in Court today be kept with the records. (2) THIS writ application is directed against initiation of Jadavpur P.S. Case No.46 of 2010 under Sections 417/418/419/420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code as also for a direction upon the respondent authority for considering the representation dated May 18, 2010 filed by the petitioner No. 1 before the Officer-in-Charge, Jadavpur Police Station, Kolkata. The petitioner No. 1 is an Insurance Company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956. The petitioner No.2 is the Zonal Manager of the petitioner No.1. (3) THE husband of the respondent No.5 namely, Alok Kr. Agarwal, since deceased, was a holder of a policy under the name and style of "I.C.I.C.I. Pru Life Guard" having a sum assured amounting Rs.5 lakhs. THE aforesaid husband of the respondent No.5 breathed his last on July 1, 2009. THE respondent No.5 was his nominee in the aforesaid policy. (4) ON August 14, 2009, the respondent submitted her claim before the petitioner No. 1 in connection with the policy under reference. ON October 12, 2009, she came to know that a cheque had been despatched by the petitioner company in her favour. She further came to know that the aforesaid cheque had also been encashed behind her back. The respondent No. 5 lodged a complaint with the Jadvpur Police Station on October 20, 2009. Since no action was taken by the police authority on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent No. 5 filed an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr PC) before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore bearing Case No.3339 of 2009. An order dated January 23, 2010 was passed on the above application directing the Officer-in-charge, Jadavpur Police Station to treat the same as FIR and to start investigation and submit a report before the learned Magistrate. (5) IN the meantime a complaint dated May 18, 2010 was lodged by the petitioner company before the Officer - in - charge, Jadavpur Police Station, in the self same matter on an apprehension of a deep-rooted conspiracy and praying for treating the same as FIR no step was taken by the police authority with regard to the same. Hence, this writ application. Hence, this writ application. (6) ACCORDING to the averments made in supplementary affidavit to the writ application, the money due and payable to the respondent No.5 was paid subsequently by Demand Draft bearing No. 207935 dated June 9, 2010. It is submitted by Mr. B. R. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the initiation of Jadavpur P.S. Case No.46 of 2010 cannot be sustained in law in view of the admitted fact that no cognizable offence has been disclosed in the petition filed by the respondent No.5 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore against any officer of the petitioners' company. It is also submitted by him that an independent proceeding is required to be initiated on the self-same cause of action for taking steps against the accused whose names have not been included in the aforesaid FIR. It is also submitted by him that in accordance with the provision section 154 of the Cr PC, 1973, the police authority is under an obligation to discharge statutory function. Since that function has not been discharged by the police authority in considering the complaint lodged by the petitioner company a Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction can direct the police authority to take a decision on the same. According to him, this writ application is filed to avoid delay in the matter by taking steps in accordance with the provisions of section 156(3) of the Cr PC. (7) MR. Bhattacharya, relies upon the decision of Bhanjanlal v. State of Hariyana, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . (8) ON the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Aninda Mitra, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.7, that this is an attempt on the part of the petitioner company to get rid off of an investigation pending against its officers in the matter of cognizable offence as also to divert the investigation under reference towards other persons. It is also submitted by him that in view of the provisions of section 156 read with sections 190 and 202 of the Cr PC, it is not permissible to approach a Court in course of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either for quashing of FIR or for directing the police authority to take cognizance of an alleged offence by- passing the aforesaid provisions. Mr. Mr. Mitra relies upon the decisions of Hari Singhv. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2464 , Nagendranath Mannna v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) CHN 190 and Aleque Padmamsee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 . (9) IT is submitted by Ms. Sarda Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, on instruction, that the demand draft of Rs.5 lakhs has already been received from the petitioner company and the respondent No. 5 has no further claim against the petitioner company in connection with the policy No.00219458 under "ICICI Pru Life Guard". IT is further submitted that after receiving the above demand draft the respondent No.5 has lost her interest with regard to the complaint lodged against the petitioner company. (10) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as also considered the facts and circumstances of this case. For deciding the issue of maintainability of the writ petition two questions arise for consideration before this Court and those are as follows: i) Whether the question of quashing the FIR in the facts and circumstances can be adjudicated in this writ petition?, and ii) Whether the police authority can be directed to treat the complaint of the petitioner company as FIR by-passing the provisions of section 156(3) of the Cr PC? Regarding the first question, I find that a Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction has a limited scope to quash FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhajanlal (supra) and the relevant portions of the above decisions are quoted below: "108. Regarding the first question, I find that a Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction has a limited scope to quash FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhajanlal (supra) and the relevant portions of the above decisions are quoted below: "108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to law down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted 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 proceeding and or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress or the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." (11) IN the instant case, none of the parties has raised any dispute with regard to disclosure of the fact of commission of cognizable offence in the matter of payment of insured money to the respondent No. 5 by the petitioner company by way of encashing a cheque by unauthorised person. The learned Additional Chief Juridical Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore passed an order at the instance of the respondent No.5 to treat her application as FIR under section 156(3) of the Cr PC, 1973 and to start investigation and submit a report before him. The charge sheet is yet to be submitted in connection with the above proceeding and the trial is also yet to be commenced. IN the above application filed by the respondent No.5 the different agencies and their officers have been made accused for the commencement of the cognizable offence in encashing cheque issued in her favour. Therefore, at this stage, a Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction cannot come to a conclusion that there is no disclosure of cognizable offence against any of the officers mentioned in the above application in view of the settled principles of law as decided in the aforesaid matter of Bhajanlal (supra). Therefore, this Court cannot adjudicate the question of quashing the FIR or Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 46 of 2010 ignoring the fact of pending of case No. AC 3339 of 2009 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore. Therefore, this Court cannot adjudicate the question of quashing the FIR or Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 46 of 2010 ignoring the fact of pending of case No. AC 3339 of 2009 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore. (12) WITH regard to the second question of directing the police authority to treat the complaint of the petitioners as FIR, Chapter XII of the Cr PC deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. In view of the provisions of section 154 of Cr PC which find place in the above chapter, the police authority is under an obligation to take steps with regarding every information relating to alleged commission of a cognizable offence. In case of inaction on his part, the person aggrieved can send the substance of said information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned. Section 156(3) provides that any Magistrate empowered under section 190 Cr PC may order such an investigation in the matter of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed hereinabove the learned Magistrate concerned is empowered by law to arrive at a conclusion with regard to allegation of inaction on the part of the police authority and to take a decision with regard to investigation in the manner prescribed in section 156(3) of Cr PC upon consideration of an application, if any. The above issue has already been settled in the matter of Hari Singh (supra) and the relevant portions of the above decisions are quoted below: "Paragraph 4. - When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complain to 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 or 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. 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 (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India and Ors., 1996 (11) SCC 582 . It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. Paragraph 5 - The above position was again highlighted recently in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (7) SCC 768 , and in Minu Kumari and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 359 . Paragraph 6 - That being so, this petition is not to be entertained. It is case of the petitioner that he is under constant threat by some persons and his life and property are in danger. If he seeks any protection, it is the duty of the concerned police officials to provide such security as are warranted in the circumstances in accordance with law." (13) IN view of the facts and circumstances of this case as also the above settled principles of law, this Court cannot direct the police authority to treat the complaint of the petitioner by passing the procedure prescribed in the Cr PC. (14) HOWEVER, this order will not stand in the way of taking steps by the petitioners in the matter in accordance with the provisions of section 156(3) of Cr PC. It is needless to point out that the respondent No. 5 is at liberty to make appropriate prayer before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore if she does not want to proceed further in the matter and in that event the learned Magistrate shall consider such prayer keeping in mind as to whether the offence under reference is compoundable one. (15) IN view of the aforesaid discussions and observations, this writ petition fails. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. Writ petition fails