ORDER : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Leaned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent-State. 2. By filing present application, under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 following reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner: (b) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order/communication dated NIL/3/2020 issued by office of respondent No. 2 herein and further be pleased to direct that action in terms of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken pursuant to the complaints of the petitioner. (c) To issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order of direction directing the concerned respondent to register FIR forthwith in connection with the complaint (Annexure-C) of the petitioner as the concerned respondents have already found that one cognizable offence has been made out. (d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, to direct registration of FIR in terms of section 154 of Cr.P.C. as the concerned respondents have already found that cognizable offence is made out. (e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, to stay further execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order/communication (Annexure-A) and further be pleased to direct registration of FIR pursuant to the complaints of the petitioner at Annexure-C. 3. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of London (U.K.) and has valuable land in Bharuch district. That the accused has hatched a conspiracy to usurp land of the petitioner and as a result of his, a forged power of attorney was prepared pursuant to which a sale deed came to be executed on the basis of the said power of attorney. That, power of attorney was false and subsequently a concerned letter was also forged by the concerned accused persons, and therefore, the petitioner approached the police authorities by submitting several representations/applications on 09.06.2017, 22.08.2017, 09.04.2018, 08.02.2018, 25.05.2018 and 22.10.2018. That in the said different applications, the petitioner reiterated the offence of forgery committed by the accused persons and given evidence with regard to forgery before the concerned Investigating Officer. That, regarding the matter of registering offence of forgery concerned in the land, applications of the petitioner were forwarded to Special Investigating Team constituted for such type of offence. That in the said different applications, the petitioner reiterated the offence of forgery committed by the accused persons and given evidence with regard to forgery before the concerned Investigating Officer. That, regarding the matter of registering offence of forgery concerned in the land, applications of the petitioner were forwarded to Special Investigating Team constituted for such type of offence. That, collector being head of SIT passed order on 08.01.2020 for registration of FIR. After the said order, concerned Investigating Officer, on 17.01.2020, sought further opinion of the law officer for implementing the order. It was further submitted that on 01.02.2020, it was opined by the officer attached with office of the respondent No. 2 that on account of bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. though cognizable offence was disclosed, FIR cannot be registered without order of the court. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that as the cognizable offence was once disclosed, there is no way left for the respondent authorities to register the FIR in terms of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. That opinion of law officer of the respondent No. 2 is contrary to the mandate to the provisions of Section 154 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his argument, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2005 (2) GLH 413 and argued that investigation authorities cannot deny for registration of the FIR, however, opined that false documents were executed by the accused persons and offence has been committed under Sections 403, 402, 466, 468 and 471 of IPC. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to allow this application by directing to register the FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. as prayed for. 4. Leaned APP for the respondent-State submits that chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. is pertaining to powers of police for registration of the FIR as well as investigation. If the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. 2014 (2) SCC 1 , investigating Officer may consider the registration of FIR as desired by the present petitioner, if there is disclosure of cognizable offence. That, Investigating Officer will examine that whether any cognizable offence on bare reading of the complaint is disclosed or not. That, Investigating Officer will examine that whether any cognizable offence on bare reading of the complaint is disclosed or not. That, the genuineness, credibility and the nature of the litigation is not within the scope of the Investigating Officer to examine. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to pass necessary orders considering the facts of the case. 5. Having considered the facts of the petition, arguments advanced by learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears from the documents produced on record that in connection with different applications submitted by the present petitioner to the concerned authorities i.e. the respondents, the Collector being a head of SIT passed an order on 08.01.2020 for registration of FIR in connection with the impugned dispute. Copy of the order dated 08.01.2020 is produced vide Annexure-D. After passing of the order of the Collector, concerned Investigating Officer requested to legal officer for his opinion on 17.01.2020 for implementation of the same. It also appears from the record, officer attached with the office of the respondent No. 2 on 01.02.2020, opined that on account of bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. though cognizable offence was disclose, FIR cannot be registered without order of the Court. 6. If we refer judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Telangana vs. Habib Abdul Jilani, 2017 (2) SCC 779 , in Para 8 it is held that: “But if the information given clearly mention the commission of cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other consideration are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. At the stage of registration of FIR what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence.” 7. In another case reported in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005 (2) GLH 413 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 20, which is as under: “An enlarged interpretation to Section 195 (1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would he highly detrimental to the interest of society at large.” 8. Undisputedly information supplied by the present petitioner in his detailed application prima-facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence, and therefore, investigating authority cannot deny for registration of the FIR, otherwise, it would violate the mandate postulated in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. This Court would like to refer the judgment reported in Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (2) SCC 677 as well as Ramesh Kumar vs. State, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a view that Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory and police authority is bound to register an FIR on receiving information disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Therefore also, inaction on the part of police in not registering the complaint, as an FIR as prayed for by the present petitioner saying that there was a bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is not legal and proper, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that communication dated 01.02.2020 of the office of the respondent No. 2 is not legal and proper, and therefore, this application is ordered to be allowed. 9. Respondent No. 2 is directed to take action on the complaints filed by the petitioner (Annexure-C) under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Communication dated NIL/3/2020 issued by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 11. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned police station through fax or email forthwith.