JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner challenges the enquiry initiated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu on the ground that the same was based upon a pseudonymous complaint purportedly written in the name of one Tarsem Kumar, alleging therein that the petitioner had been running two businesses in two different names of ‘Jai Bharat Traders, Nagrota, Jammu’ and ‘Jai Lakshmi Traders, Nagrota, Jammu’ from the same premises and that fake stamps and stamp pads were being used for purposes of obtaining supply orders from the army authorities with their connivance. 2. From the record, it appears that the complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, City North, Jammu by communication dated 6.8.2016 followed by communication dated 6th of September, 2016 for enquiry. In March, 2017, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu again directed the SHO Police Station, Nagrota to re-verify certain facts with regard to the second business unit of the petitioner pertaining to Jai Laxmi Traders. The process of enquiry, it was alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner, is therefore, continuing ad infinitum contrary to ratio of the Apex Court judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & ors, 2013 (4) Crimes (SC) 243. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the judgment (supra), urged that the enquiry could not have been conducted beyond the maximum period of six weeks and that the same ought to have been time bound. The effect of the process of enquiry, according to the learned counsel, was that the petitioner had repeatedly been harassed by the concerned officers from the Police Station, Nagrota by asking him to attend their office and this was also followed by innumerable visits of policemen to his business premises, causing embarrassment and creating suspicion amongst his friends, neighbours and, therefore, lowering his prestige in the society, which, according to learned counsel, has started looking at the petitioner with suspicion. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In Lalita Kumari’s case (supra), the Apex Court held that registration of an FIR was mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and in that situation, no preliminary enquiry was permissible, but it further held that if the information received did not disclose a cognizable offence but indicated the necessity of an enquiry, the same be conducted only to ascertain as to whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. According to the judgment (supra), if upon enquiry, a cognizable offence was disclosed, the FIR had to be registered and highlighted the fact that the scope of a preliminary enquiry was not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information revealed any cognizable offence. 6. It was, in those circumstances, that six weeks’ time was prescribed for conducting such an enquiry. In the present case, it appears that the process of enquiry was initiated pursuant to communication dated 6.8.2016 and appears to continue as on date. This would be contrary to the ratio of the judgment in Lalita Kumari’s case. 7. Be that as it may, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to conclude the enquiry initiated positively within a period of six weeks from today and in case, the enquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, they shall proceed to register an FIR in that regard and in case the same is not done within the prescribed period, the matter be deemed to have been closed.