THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12417 OF 2010 Dated 3rd June, 2010 Between: G.Yadagiri Goud …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Nageswara Rao Turaga Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the police under the jurisdiction of respondents 2 and 3 in registering complaints given by one K.Kavyasri (for convenience hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) against the petitioner without holding preliminary enquiry about the bona fides of such complaints as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has sought for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to hold preliminary enquiry about the genuineness of the complaints before registering the cases. I have heard Sri Nageswara Rao Turaga, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be an Ophthalmologist and have employed the complainant for sometime. According to the petitioner, the complainant has misappropriated the money of the petitioner and was consequently removed from employment. On the report given by the petitioner’s wife, Crime No.198 of 2009 was registered in the Uppal Police Station and the said case was closed as the complainant tendered apology before the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner pleaded that the complainant gave a report against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC before the Gopalapuram Police Station and that he is appearing in the Court of X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in connection with the said case. It is the further case of the petitioner that the complainant gave another complaint against him for the offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC in the Uppal Police Station and that the said case has been registered as Crime No.289 of 2010. The petitioner pleaded that registration of criminal cases against him is causing mental agony to him and the police are bound to make preliminary enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the complaints before they are registered. At the hearing, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”), which mandates that the police officer concerned is required to hold a preliminary enquiry before registering a crime on the report given by a person. The learned counsel says that there is no such provision in existence. He, however, submitted that as the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated by registration of criminal cases on the frivolous complaints given by the complainant, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The procedure for registration of cases is governed by the Code. Section 154 of the Code deals with information in cognizable cases and whenever such information is received, the Officer-in-charge of the police station shall reduce the same in writing and substance of the same shall be entered in a book maintained by the Officer. If such an action is not taken, the aggrieved party can approach the Superintendent of Police for redressal of his grievance. Under Section 156 of the Code, the Officer-in-charge of the police station without the order of the Magistrate is entitled to investigate into any cognizable case. Section 157 prescribes procedure for investigation, which envisages that if from information received or otherwise, the Officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such an offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not below the rank as the State Government may by general or special order prescribe in this behalf to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, the Officer is empowered to arrest the offender. It is thus evident from the abovementioned provisions that the police officer in charge of the police station is empowered to register a case if he has reason to suspect commission of an offence. None of these provisions or any other provision in the Code envisage a preliminary enquiry before registering the case. Ordinarily upon the subjective satisfaction of the police officer action is taken on the report given by a person to register the crime after entering the contents of the report in the register kept for this purpose and set the process in motion by submitting appropriate report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the police shall hold a preliminary enquiry before registering the case has no legal basis whatsoever. As regards the contention based on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same is equally meritless. Article 21 guarantees every person life and personal liberty with an exception that the same can be taken away by following procedure established by law. Registration of a case undoubtedly is a part of the procedure established by law. In this view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to give a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to instruct their subordinate police officers to hold preliminary enquiry into the reports, if any, given by the complainant before registering the criminal cases. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by registration of false and vexatious cases, he is entitled to invoke his remedies provided under the Code. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is without any substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.15666 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 3rd June, 2010 vrn