Anthoniraj vs The Superintendent of Police, The Deputy Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police

G. Rajasuria, J.—This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 18.12.2008 and investigate the same.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

Animadverting upon the inaction on the part of the police in not responding to the complaint dated 18.12.2008 lodged by the petitioner with the police, direction to the police is sought.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would develop his arguments to the effect that the police was duty bound to register First Information Report based on the complaint, which disclosed cognizable offences u/s 294(b), 341 and 506(i) I.P.C., but no action has been taken.

Heard the learned Government Advocate.

At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent with the judgment of this Court dated 18.07.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6616 of 2007, communicated vide circular ROC. No. 1110B/07/F/MB P.Dis. No. 5/2007, dated 30.07.2007, which was circulated to all Magistrates in Tamil Nadu, which would adequately protect the interest of the petitioner. I could recollect fruitfully the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , which also would posit the aforesaid legal proposition only.

If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police officials in registering a case, it is for him to file necessary application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, who was expected to act in accordance with law and as per the aforesaid decisions cited supra. As such the petitioner is directed to resort to such a procedure.