1. This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the Delhi High Court made on 14-5-1996 in CWP No. 1946 of 1996 directing institution proceedings against one, Dr S.K. Kacker, former Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for the alleged cognizable offense punishable under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench refused to issue mandamus to the police to investigate into the allegations made against the said doctor.

2. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had laid all the necessary information before the Director as well as the Minister concerned and also the Prime Minister bringing to their notice all the offenses committed by the doctor but no action in that behalf had been taken. As a result, the petitioner was constrained to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to take the steps as required under the law. The High Court, therefore, was not right in refusing to entertain the writ petition and giving directions in this behalf. We find that the stand taken by the petitioner is not correct in law.

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) prescribes the procedure to investigate into the cognizable offenses defined under the Code. In respect of cognizable offense, Chapter XII of the Code prescribes the procedure : information to the police and their powers to investigate the cognizable offense. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 envisages that.

"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf." *

On such information being received and reduced to writing, the officer in charge of the police station has been empowered under Section 156 of investigate into the cognizable cases. The procedure for investigation has been given under Section 157 of the Code, the details of which are not material. After conducting the investigation prescribed in the manner envisaged in Chapter XII, charge-sheet shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense. Section 173 envisages that.

"(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay

(2) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government giving details therein. Upon receipt of the report, the Court under Section 190 is empowered to take cognizance of the offense. Under Section 173(8), the investigating officer has power to make further investigation into the offense." *

4. When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is take, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offense under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offense to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offense, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offense and would issue process to the accused.

5. In this case, the petitioner had not adopted either of the procedure provided under the Code. As a consequence, without availing of the above procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI which is not required to investigate into all or every offense. The High Court, therefore, though for different reasons, was justified in refusing to grant the relief as sought for.

6. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. It, however, does not preclude the petitioner from following either of the procedures as indicated above, if so advised and deemed appropriate.