The court affirmed the duty of the police to register a complaint disclosing a cognizable offense under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and clarified the scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in securing the ends of justice.

The petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 23-2-2006. The complaint inter alia reads that on 22-2-2006, one Sujatha rang up to the residence of the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, threatened her to settle the amount which was allegedly borrowed by her. It has been further contended in the complaint that the said Sujatha sent SMS to the friends of the petitioner using unparliamentary words. On 23-2-2006, the said Sujatha came along with three henchmen to the residence of the petitioner, shouted and threatened that she would defame the petitioner and would not permit her to live peacefully. There was further threat that the said Sujatha would attack the children, family members, parents and in-laws of the petitioner. The said Sujatha shouted at the petitioner using all unparliamentary words and heaped abuse on her. The grievance of the petitioner is that the life of the petitioner and her family members is in danger.

2. The Court heard the submissions made by the respondent and also the counter party Sujatha, who was permitted to intervene in this matter.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in as much as the complaint which reflects commission of cognisable offence addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, South, Chennai 600 017, with a copy endorsed to the Commissioner of Police was not registered, a direction may be issued to the respondent Police to perform their duty as contemplated under Section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the counter party would submit that when there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, she cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, it is submitted that, this Court has no power to give any direction to the Police under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If at all any direction is required, that should flow from the writ jurisdiction and not from the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The Court heard the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.

6. The sum and substance of the complaint would disclose that there is sufficient allegation to the effect that there had been threat from the counter party. Abusive language also has been allegedly used by the counter party. So there is sufficient allegation found in the complaint that there was commission of cognisable offence.

7. While striking the difference between the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2) and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Honourable Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 67) : (1983 Cri LJ 159), has held (para 6) :

"It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the present code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. If these considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between Sections 482 and 397 (2) of the present code."

8. In a case where the High Court entertained an application to stay the operation of the judgment of the trial Court, invoking the provision under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on the allegation made by the accused touching the conduct of the trial Judge, the Honourable Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2554) : (1999 Cri LJ 3964) has observed as follows :

"In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition under Section 482 of the Code and stonewalled the very efficacious alternative remedy of appeal as provided in the Code. Merely because the accused made certain allegations against the trial Judge the substantive law cannot be by passed. Moreover, it is wel