JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to register any FIR against the petitioner no.2 or against the company of the petitioner no.1 or its employees, which may be lodged by the proposed buyers of the land/flats from the company of the petitioner no.1 “M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.” now known as “M/s Samiah International Builders Limited” with regard to its project situated at “Samiah Lake City” Kashipur Road, Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ask the informant, if any, who comes to lodge an FIR against the petitioners or against the employees or officers of the company of the petitioner no.1 which is being run in the name and style of “M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.” now known as “M/s Samiah International Builders Limited: with regard to its project at “Samiah Lake City” Kashipur Road, Rudrapur, to settle his grievance either before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Authority Dehradun or put his grievance before the District Legal Service Authority Udham Singh Nagar at Rudrapur for mediation and conciliation. III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to halt the investigation in all the matters which have been registered against the petitioners or against the employees of the petitioners’ company M/s SAmiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd. now know as “Saia International Builders Ltd”, Kashipur Road, Rudrapur, with regard to the project known as “Samiah Lake City”, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. IV. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the petitioners, they are developers and work under the name and style of M/S Samia International Builders Pvt. Ltd. (“the developers”). The developers have sanctioned a project known as Samia Lake City, wherein both 4500 flats and plots are to be sold. 1136 plots/flats have already been handed over to the purchasers out of 1812 plots/flats that has been booked. Still an amount of Rs.5,367/- Lacks is to be recovered from the persons, who have booked their plots/flats. The developers have sanctioned a project known as Samia Lake City, wherein both 4500 flats and plots are to be sold. 1136 plots/flats have already been handed over to the purchasers out of 1812 plots/flats that has been booked. Still an amount of Rs.5,367/- Lacks is to be recovered from the persons, who have booked their plots/flats. The petitioners have grievance that the police is not exercising the power lawfully and lodging FIR after FIR against the developers without any valid reasons. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier various FIRs were lodged against the petitioners in which either anticipatory bail was granted; or compromised; or protection was granted by this Court. The details are as follows:- S.N. Informant FIR No. Order of Hon’ble Court 1. Ghanshyam Dutt Chaturvedi 255/2023 Compromised (WPCRL 1724/2023) 2. Mohd. Shahzad Khan 215/2023 Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.312/2023) 3. Smt. Firdous Khan 216/2023 Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.329/2023) 4. Ms. Farheen Khan 217/2023 Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.427/2023) 5. Fardeen Khan 218/2023 Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.313/2023) 6. Arham Khan 221/2023 Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court in Anticipatory bail application (ABA No.325/2023) An order of protection from coercive steps has also granted in the writ petition. (WPCRL No.1145 of 2023). 7. Parvej Alam 424/2023 An order of protection from coercive steps has been granted in the writ petition (WPCRL No.1099 of 2023). 8. Rajesh Kumar Jain 433/2023 An order of protection from coercive steps has been granted in the writ petition. (WPCRL No.1108 of 2023). 9. Kheemnath Goswami 422/2023 An order of protection from coercive steps has been granted in the writ petition. (WPCRL No.1100 of 2023. 10. Khagendra Gupta 420/2023 An order of protection from coercive steps has been granted in the writ petition. (WPCRL No.1068 of 2023) 11. Dharmanand Balodi 404/2023 An order of protection from coercive steps has been granted in the writ petition. (WPCRL No.1074 of 2023) 5. The petitioners claimed that they had also reported their grievance to the Senior Police Officers, but yet the lodging of the FIR has not been stopped. (WPCRL No.1068 of 2023) 11. Dharmanand Balodi 404/2023 An order of protection from coercive steps has been granted in the writ petition. (WPCRL No.1074 of 2023) 5. The petitioners claimed that they had also reported their grievance to the Senior Police Officers, but yet the lodging of the FIR has not been stopped. Not only this, according to the petitioners, the reputation of the developers is being tarnished by Media Publications to blackmail the petitioners. Reference has been made to The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“the RERA Act”) to argue that if the developers had delayed in handing over the possession, a buyer may approach RERA authority, under the RERA Act seeking possession and compensation whatsoever may be, but successive FIR so as to tarnish the image of the petitioners or to blackmail them should not be lodged. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the businessmen; they have got sanctioned the project; all the valid approvals were procured; the plots/flats were allotted; some are yet to be allotted; the project has been delayed for various reasons, but the petitioners carries and bears the responsibilities with regard to the obligations towards the buyers/purchasers; Notices have also been issued in the newspapers inviting the buyers to come forward either to take possession of the plots/flats or to take their money back. It is argued that the petitioners did not have any idea since inception to cheat anyone; they did not have any dishonest intention since inception; even it is argued that petitioners do not have any dishonest intention today; they are in the market; there is no question of cheating, as defined under Section 415 IPC; there is no question of any forgery; mere delaying any project, it is argued does not attract the offence of cheating or forgery. Therefore, it is argued that the police may be directed not to lodge the FIR for any complaint that may be given by the buyers instead the buyers should be redirected to the authority under RERA Act or the District Legal Services Authority may be put into the loop before any FIR is lodged. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that there is no provision under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) to issue such directions to the Police that FIR may not be lodged. 8. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that there is no provision under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) to issue such directions to the Police that FIR may not be lodged. 8. Lodging of an FIR and investigation is governed by the provisions of the Code. The FIR relates to a cognizable offence, as defined under the Code. In the matters of non-cognizable offences, the report that is lodged by the police is termed as Non Cognizable Report (“NCR”). Chapter XII of the Code deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. Right from Section 154 of the Code, which provides for lodging of an FIR till 176 of the Code, which deals with inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death are under Chapter XII of the Code. Once FIR is lodged, the police proceeds under Chapter XII of the Code and it culminates in filing of the Police Report. 9. In the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down directions with regard to lodging of an FIR under Section 154. In all cognizable cases as a rule an FIR has to be lodged. In para 120 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up the conclusions/directions. They are as follows:- “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The 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. 120.2. 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. 120.3. 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. 120.4. 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. 120.5. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. 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. 120.5. 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. 120.6. 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. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and 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. 120.8. 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.” 10. Para 120.1 of the judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), makes it obligatory to the Police Officer to register an FIR, if the information disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. It further directs that no preliminary inquiry is permissible if the report, discloses a cognizable offence. 11. What is being argued is that, in fact, the kind of FIR that is being filed by the buyers against the petitioners does not make out a cognizable offence. What is being argued is that in dealing between the petitioners and buyers, there are no chances of commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, directions are sought. 12. 11. What is being argued is that, in fact, the kind of FIR that is being filed by the buyers against the petitioners does not make out a cognizable offence. What is being argued is that in dealing between the petitioners and buyers, there are no chances of commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, directions are sought. 12. A report given at the Police Station, as stated is lodged as an FIR or as a NCR. The role of Investigating Officer or the Police in the matter of lodging of an FIR or for investigation may not be suspected. In the case of The King Emperor vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 , the Privy Council has observed:- “Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry…………. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always of course subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under section 491 of the Cr. P.C. to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus.” 13. In view of the settled legal positions, blanket directions may not be issued to the Police for not lodging FIRs, that are given by the buyers against the petitioners. 14. A civil dispute may also have an element of criminality. If a dispute is also civil in nature, which could be redressed by a person under any statue, it per se does not take away such cause out from the criminal jurisdiction. As stated, a civil cause may also have an element of criminality. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. As stated, an FIR may be lodged if the report discloses commission of offence. As stated, a civil cause may also have an element of criminality. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. As stated, an FIR may be lodged if the report discloses commission of offence. At the stage of lodging of an FIR, the person giving such report may not be required to get all the material along with him to show that he can establish that offence. The credibility and truthfulness of the FIR is tested during investigation. Even when investigation proceeds, the liberty of an individual i.e. an accused named in the FIR is always respected. It is not interfered merely because an FIR is lodged. There are umpteen directions of the Higher Courts as well as the statutory provisions, which ensures an individual’s liberty. The Rule is, “arrest is not must”. The power to arrest is one thing and necessity to arrest is quite distinct. A Police Officer is required to record his reasons in every matter where personal liberty of an individual is proposed to be curtailed. 16. References have been made to certain FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioners. One of them is FIR No.420 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. It records that despite assurance and payment having been made, the construction did not begin. The place where mall was to be constructed was still a pond. This FIR was lodged on 18.07.2022. This FIR also records that the accused named in that FIR had forged/cheated various other persons and had sold one plot to various persons, thereby cheated various persons. On the face of it, it cannot be said that this FIR does not disclose any commission of offence. Whether the averments made in this FIR is correct or not, that will fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. Therefore, blanket directions for not registering FIRs against the petitioners may not be issued to the respondent authorities. 17. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 18. The petition is dismissed in limine.