1. All the above Criminal Original Petitions are filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioners therein.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance on the Judgment in Chelpark Co. v. Commissioner of Police, Madras, 1969 Crl.L.J. 206, wherein this Court has held that when a Magistrate can order investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that High Court has no power to order investigation and direct the police to do its duty. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohindro v. State of Punjab & others, 2001 (2) Supreme (Cr.) 141, that: “Police cannot refuse to register a case on report of cognizable offence on basis of any alleged enquiry”.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the above decisions, these petitions are to be allowed as prayed for.

3. Heard the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side on these aspects.

4. These petitions are filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that since there is no other provision in the Code for the relief sought for in this petition, they resort to Section 482, Cr.P.C. and these petitions are maintainable.

5. It is to be noted that the Judgment Chelpark Company Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Police, Madras, 1969 Crl.L.J. 209, is a Judgment rendered in a writ petition, where this Court exercised the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is different. The power exercised under Article 226 cannot be equated or compared with the power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Therefore, that decision does not help the petitioners.

6. Section 482, Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court :- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”.

The scope of Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been interpreted in a number of cases by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the provision under Section 482, Cr.P.C. only saves the inherent powers which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code; it envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction will be exercised namely, (i) to give effect to an effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Code, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While exercising the powers under this Section, the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. At the same time, this extraordinary power conferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has to be exercised separately, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself.

7. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code. In Kushi Ram v. Hashim, AIR 1959 SC 542, a three judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held that:

“It is unnecessary to emphasis that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561(A) cannot be invoked in regard to matters which are directly covered by the specific provisions of the Code; .”

This was reiterated again in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, while interpreting the Section 561(A) under the 1898 Code (which was identical with Section 482, Cr.P.C. of the 1973 Code) as follows:

“Inherent power of the High Court under Section 561(A), Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisi