Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate direction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India can be issued by the High Court against the officer in-charge of a police station who refuses to register a crime on receipt of a written complaint alleging the commission of cognizable offences?

This is the interesting question which crops up for consideration in this Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Incidentally a further question arises as to whether this court, following the verdict of the Apex Court in Pepsi Food’s Case (AIR 1998 SC 128) can treat the Writ Petition as one filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. and direct the Station House Officer to register a crime.

THE COMPLAINT

2. A resume of Ext.P1 complaint sent by the petitioner herein through speed post simultaneously to the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City and Sub Inspector of Police, Cantonment, Thiruvananthapuram is as follows:-

268.872 hectares (664.38 acres) of land called the Merchiston Estate comprised in various survey numbers of Thennoor Village in Ponmudi area which originally belonged to the Birla Group was purchased by one Sevy Mano Mathew on 30-3-2005. The right, title, interest and possession of the aforesaid land along with other ecologically fragile forest land with effect from 2-6-2000 onwards had already vested in the State under Sec.3(1) of The Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Ordinance 6 of 2000 which was subsequently replaced by the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile) Act, 2003 which was published on 8-6-2005 and which came into force with retrospective effect from 2-6-2000 that is, the date from which Ordinance 6 of 2000 came into force. Section 5 of both the ordinance as well as the subsequent Act declares that ecologically fragile land so vested in the State shall be reserve forest and liable to be managed as such. Thus, on 30-3-2005 when Sevi Mano Mathew purchased the aforesaid 268.872 hectares of land from Birla Group neither the transferor (Birla Group) nor the transferee (Sevy Mano Mathew) had any right, title, interest or possession in resects of the said land which had already vested in the State. A part of the said land admeasuring 23.7371 hectares had been covered by proceeding under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 while the property was in the possession of the Birla Group. Even though the Forest Tribunal when moved under Sec.8 of the said Act had held that the said 23.7371 hectares of land had vested in the State, on appeal preferred by the Birla Group before the High Court, it was held that the said land had not vested in the State and the High Court directed restoration of the possession of the said land to the owner, Birla Group. But before possession was restored to the owner, the ecologically fragile land ordinance came into force on 2-6-2000 vesting the right, title, interest and possession of the entire 268.872 hectares of land including the 23.7371 hectares in the State. After the illegal purchase of 268.872 hectares of land from the Birla Group, Sevy Mano Mathew started felling trees from a portion of the land resulting in the Forest Department registering cases against him. On 13-12-2006, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO for short) issued a paper publication calling for offers from property owners in Ponmudi area for purchase of 217 acres of land for the purpose of setting up a Space Technology Institute. When the ISRO wrote to the Revenue Minister for allotment of 100 acres of land in Ponmudi area for establishing the said Space Technology Institute, the Government had replied that no land was available. In the meanwhile, on 7-3-2007 Savy Mano Mathew entered into an agreement with ISRO for sale of 217 acres out of the 268.872 hectares referred to above. Savy Mano Mathew also obtained a possession certificate from the Village Officer, The