FIR registration and CID transfer may follow cognizable complaints, but High Court supervision cannot curb Magistrate control.

Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite alternative remedies under the criminal procedure code where police inaction is exceptional and intervention is needed to compel performance of public duty. If a complaint ex facie discloses a cognizable offence, FIR registration is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry may test credibility before registration. In exceptional circumstances where local influence or inaction undermines confidence, investigation may be entrusted to the CID to secure a fair and unbiased inquiry. However, High Court supervision cannot curtail the investigating officer's and Magistrate's statutory functions, and a restraint on filing the final report without leave of court is impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable and fit to be entertained notwithstanding the remedies under the criminal procedure code; (ii) whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence requiring registration of an FIR; (iii) whether investigation could be entrusted to the CID; and (iv) whether the High Court could monitor the investigation and restrain filing of the police report without leave of court.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable and fit to be entertained notwithstanding the remedies under the criminal procedure code

Analysis: The existence of remedies under the criminal procedure code does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction. The complaint had remained unattended for a substantial period, and the police inaction made the case exceptional. In such circumstances, the writ court could intervene to compel performance of public duty rather than to adjudicate criminal liability.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and was rightly entertained.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence requiring registration of an FIR

Analysis: Once information ex facie discloses a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry is permissible to test credibility or truthfulness. The allegations in the complaint were sufficiently serious to warrant immediate registration, and the police were not justified in delaying action on the basis of further verification.

Conclusion: An FIR had to be registered and the direction for registration was in law.

Issue (iii): whether investigation could be entrusted to the CID

Analysis: Ordinarily the investigating agency is not changed, but where inaction or local influence undermines confidence in the investigation, transfer to an independent agency is justified to secure a fair and unbiased inquiry. The facts disclosed sufficient cause for such entrustment, and the CID could be directed to investigate through an appropriate officer under its supervision.

Conclusion: Entrustment of the investigation to the CID was sustainable in law.

Issue (iv): whether the High Court could monitor the investigation and restrain filing of the police report without leave of court

Analysis: Monitoring may be permitted in exceptional cases to ensure fairness and expedition, but supervision of the investigation is impermissible because it intrudes upon the statutory functions of the investigating officer and the Magistrate. A direction preventing filing of the final report under section 173(2) without leave of court would amount to supervision rather than monitoring and would trench upon the Magistrate's powers.

Conclusion: The direction to monitor the investigation in that manner was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part, since the directions sustaining the writ jurisdiction, FIR registration, and CID investigation were upheld, but the supervisory restraint on submission of the police report was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint ex facie discloses a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR without conducting a credibility test, and in exceptional cases the investigation may be transferred to an independent agency, but the High Court cannot supervise the investigation in a manner that curtails the Magistrate's statutory control over the final report.

---