"The material does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence nor does it show that there is any reasonable probability of commission of cognizable offence at the hands of former Commissioner of Police. Unless and until such material is available on record and it is within the own knowledge of the person seeking registration of a crime, it cannot be said that any more investigation by the police is warranted and that a person seeking such investigation in the crime has locus in the matter," the bench observed in its order passed on March 23. 

Parshuram Sharma, a petitioner seeking directions from the State Police to investigate the alleged role played by Singh, in the Antilia Bomb scare case and also the murder case of Mansukh Hiren. The Court noted that in January, the Court passed an order in the bail plea of one of the accused Pradeep Sharma, a coordinate bench had made some observations regarding ₹5 lakh being paid to one Ishaan Sinha, a cyber expert.

"In fact, the court has only asked a question as to why a huge payment was made to one Ishaan Sinha, Cyber Expert and further question was asked as to what was the interest of the Commissioner of Police. But, beyond asking these questions, the court had said nothing," the Court said. 

"It is only that informant who would have a locus to file FIR with the police station, in terms of section 154 of CrPC, who has credible information about the commission of the cognizable offence. Criminal law can be set into motion only after the complaint made to the police discloses commission of a cognizable offence in terms of section 154 of CrPC. All these aspects necessary for initiation of an investigation into a cognizable crime are absent in this case," the bench observed. 

With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition.