The sparing exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the necessity for effective and efficacious alternative remedies, and the duty of the petitioner to specify the penal provision attracted by the facts alleged in the complaint when invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the first respondent herein to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner herein dated 22.12.2006 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

2. Thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondents and resisted the petition even without filing a counter statement, contending that the petition is not even fit for admission and that the same should be dismissed in limine.

3. The submissions made by Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also by Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents have been heard.

4. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been sought to be invoked by filing this petition seeking a direction to the first respondent herein that a criminal case should be registered and investigated upon based on the complaint of the petitioner herein dated 22.12.2006. To invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner should have made out a case (i) that the allegations made in the complaint coupled with the documents, if any, produced along with the complaint make out a case for a cognizable offence either bailable or non-bailable; and (ii) that the denial of such a direction will result in grave injustice or abuse of process of law.

5. In this case, the petitioners prayer is resisted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the respondents, contending that both the conditions mentioned above are absent in this case and hence the petitioner shall be held not entitled to the relief sought for in this petition. Whenever a person lodges a complaint with the police informing that a cognizable offence has been committed by a known or unknown person and the police officer concerned fails or refuses to register a case, then the person aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the officer in charge of the police station may send the substance of the complaint, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned and the Superintendent of police in turn, if he is satisfied that the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him. This procedure is laid down in Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:

"Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."

6. In case, the Superintendent of Police also neglects or refuses to investigate the case or direct an investigation to be made, then the aggrieved party may furnish the information to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., who in turn, may order an investigation to be made even without taking cognizance of the offence by forwarding the information to the police for registration of a case and investigation. The aggrieved person (complainant) shall have another remedy by preferring a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

7. It is well settled that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised only to counter the miscarriage of justice and misuse of process of Court. It has also been settled that in case of availability of effective and efficacious