ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This intra Court appeal is preferred by the appellant under section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order of writ Court dated 15.6.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.3317/2015 whereby the petition filed on behalf of petitioner/respondent No.1 under Article 226 of Constitution of India for appropriate direction to the authority of respondents to register the cognizable offence on her complaint given in writing (Annexure P-1 to the petition), has been allowed and said Writ Petition was disposed of with some direction in the light of decision of apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [ (2014)2 SCC 1 ]. 3. Appellant’s counsel after taking us through the papers placed on record along impugned order as well as record of writ Court, by referring a reported judgment of the apex Court of Lalita Kumari (supra), said that before registration of offence a preliminary enquiry should be held by the Station House Officer in respect of report Annexure P-1 with the petition given by respondent No.1 in writing to the aforesaid Police Station, Madhoganj District Gwalior, for that purpose no specific direction was given by the writ Court and in the light of such direction, right of present appellant may be seriously prejudiced and he being government servant on registration of offence without enquiry has to suffer a lot in his career. In support of arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision of apex Court in the matter of Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and others [ (2008)3 SCC 542 ], by referring paras No.49, 50 and 51 of said judgment, he said that before registration of offence, enquiry should be carried out by the Station House Officer of concerned Police Station in respect of averments of the report of complainant/respondent No.1. With this submission, he prayed to modify impugned order till aforesaid extent directing authority of respondents to hold an enquiry before registration of offence in compliance of impugned order of writ Court by allowing this appeal. In the back drop of aforesaid arguments, he has also prayed to extend liberty to the present appellant to file some papers in support of his case before Investigating Officer. 4. In the back drop of aforesaid arguments, he has also prayed to extend liberty to the present appellant to file some papers in support of his case before Investigating Officer. 4. Aforesaid prayer is seriously opposed by the State counsel saying that in the light of Lalita Kumari (supra), on receiving the information of any cognizable offence, there is no option with the Station House Officer of concerned police station except to register the offence under section 154 of CrPC and to proceed with the matter in accordance with subsequent sections of such chapter of CrPC. In such premises, there is no provision in such chapter in which any document or paper filed on behalf of alleged accused like present appellant could be considered before registration of offence or in further investigation of case and in such premises he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 5. Apart the aforesaid, counsel for respondent No.1 categorically stated that in view of judgment of apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari (supra), there is no option with the Station House Officer of concerned police station to register the offence against the proposed accused if any of the cognizable offence defined under Indian Penal Code or any other enactment is made out and after registration of offence, investigation agency is bound to investigate the matter and up to the stage of framing of charge any document filed on behalf of proposed accused like appellant could not be considered either by the Investigation Agency or after filing of charge-sheet by the concerned Court. In such circumstances, he prays for dismissal of appeal. 6. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the record of writ Court and papers placed in the writ Court as well as before this Court along with impugned order being passed in the light of principle laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), by extending a discretion to the Station House Officer of concerned police station for registration of offence, does not require interference at this stage hence till such extent by dismissing this appeal impugned order is hereby affirmed. Apart the aforesaid, in view of additional submission of appellant’s counsel that appellant should be permitted to file his documents and papers in support of his case before Investigating Officer for consideration in enquiry if same is held by him. Apart the aforesaid, in view of additional submission of appellant’s counsel that appellant should be permitted to file his documents and papers in support of his case before Investigating Officer for consideration in enquiry if same is held by him. In view of aforesaid case law cited by appellant’s counsel in support of his arguments, in the available circumstances appellant is extended a liberty to file his documents and papers along with index before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer is directed to comply with the order of writ Court strictly in the light of principle laid down in the aforesaid cited cases of apex Court that is in the matter of Lalita Kumari (supra), and Divine Retreat Centre (supra). 7. It is made clear that at this stage, this Court is not giving any further interpretation to the language of law laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid cited cases. In such premises, it is made clear that Station House Officer of the concerned police station shall be at liberty to consider the matter strictly in the light of aforesaid cited cases and not otherwise. 8. In view of the aforesaid, by affirming the order of writ Court this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid additional observation. There shall be no order as to costs. ..............