JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and seeking direction to direct the Police Banmore (commonly known as Banmore Cement) District Morena to register FIR against the culprits in respect of complaint sent to the police by registered post dated 04.7.2014. 2. Petitioner Virendra Singh is an agriculturist of District Morena and is permanent resident of village Pahadi, Banmore, District Morena. On 20.3.2014 a person named Bhura was murdered by some unknown persons. In this murder case, petitioner's relative are ropped in by the opposite faction. Crime No. 91/2014 was registered under Sections 396, 397, 147, 148, 149 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and also under Section 25/27 of Indian Arms Act. Charge sheet (Annexure P/1) has been filed by Police Banmore. 3. Due to this rivalry on 20.3.2014 in the mid night at about 12 AM, the family members of the deceased Bhura (who has murdered as stated above), including Rajendra son of Damodar, Hardev son of Damodar, Pappu alias Jitendra son of Mahendra Akku @ Rustam son of Mahendra, Banwari son of Garsingh, Vidyaram son of Damodar and Baso son of Vidyaram resident of village Pahadi attacked the house of petitioner. They also committed dacoity and valuable articles including the gold jewellery and clothes were looted. These persons committed dacoity by using firearms and damaged the house of the petitioner and his relatives. 4. Thereafter again in the intervening night of 11/12th April, 2014 the above named persons committed dacoity in the house of the applicant and his brother's house situated at village Pahadi and robbed gold and sliver ornaments and other household articles. Regarding above two incidents of dacoity committed on 20.3.2014 and 11th-12th April, 2014 by the family members of the deceased Bhura, the petitioners made several oral and written complaints before the police Banmore but of no avail. Due to the influence of the culprits no FIR has been registered. 5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has down the law in this regard. In Lalita Kumari Vs. Due to the influence of the culprits no FIR has been registered. 5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has down the law in this regard. In Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & others reported in 2012 (5) MPHT 336 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following guidelines:- "(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no Preliminary Inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a Preliminary Inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where Preliminary Inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of Preliminary Inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases Preliminary Inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which Preliminary Inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes. (b) Commercial Offences. (C) Medical negligence cases. (d) Corruption cases, (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant Preliminary Inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a Preliminary Inquiry should be made time bound land in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a Preliminary Inquiry should be made time bound land in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above." 6. Keeping in view that the petitioner has filed written complaint which was sent by registered post to Police Station, Banmore the same be enquired within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and if any cognizance offence is made out, FIR be registered, following the law laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). With this direction this petition stands disposed of.