12. As for the prayer of the petitioners that a direction be made to the Rajouri Garden police to register a case under Sections 379/380/506/34 IPC against respondent no.5 to 10, it has been noticed above that according to the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajouri Garden, the case was not registered for a variety of reasons. He denies that the petitioners ever reported at the police station for lodging a report to this effect. So, it cannot be taken for granted that whatever the petitioners say must be a gospel truth and secondly, the contention of the SHO is that petitioner no.1 being a notorious land grabber it was not considered advisable to register a case without first verifying the facts. I do not think there is any merit in this contention in view of the plain language of section 154 of the Code which lays down in no uncertain terms that the substance of every information, whether oral or written, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence shall be entered in a book to be kept by such police officer as may be prescribed by the Government in this behalf. So, all that the concerned police officer has to be see at that stage is whether the first information imparted to him by the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not and it is not necessary that there must be complete or satisfactory proof or evidence in relation to the commission of that offence. So, the action of Rojouri Garden police in not registering a case on the information given by the petitioners, if any, was highly improper and not warranted by law. All the same, three courses were open to the complainant for seeking redress in this behalf. In the first instance, he could complain to the Superintendent of the Police Station to record the information, as contemplated in Sub-section (1) of Section 145. Secondly, he could approach the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for a direction in this behalf under Section 156 (3) of the Code. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners ever approached the Magistrate with such a request. Lastly, the petitioners could well file a complaint against the culprits before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate as contemplated in Section 190 of the Code. They do not appear to have taken recourse to any of these alternative remedies. Hence, it will not be a sound exercise of the discretion vesting in this Court to direct the Rajouri Garden police to register a case and investigate the matter on the basis of the complaints sent by petitioner no.1 to them by post, more so when the SHO has already indicated in his mind in this behalf, viz that
