V.Ramasubramanian, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against an order passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 28.10.2011 in an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 226 of the Constitution. By the said order impugned in this appeal, the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the appellant to initiate an enquiry into the offences allegedly committed by the sole respondent under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. We have heard Mr.T.Jaishankar, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. This case has had a chequered history, which is, at once, interesting as well as agonising. The narration of all the historical facts, though painful, is necessary, in order to highlight the manner in which there has been an abuse of the process of court and the manner in which, the system is sought to be ridiculed. Therefore, the history of this litigation is recorded as follows:

(a) The appellant is a Burma repatriate. She and her husband own a house at No.116/1, E.H. Road, Sharma Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai 600 039. Their next door neighbour, by name Alaguvel Nadar, started putting up a construction in the first floor of his property. Since the proposed construction was likely to result in the window of the bedroom of the appellant's house being shut and her easementary right to light and ventilation likely to be infringed, the appellant and her husband protested;

(b) According to the appellant, her next door neighbour was a powerful person in the locality, who wielded lot of influence with the police. The protest by the appellant, about the construction put up by her neighbour, appears to have led to a scuffle on 26.9.2004;

(c) In the scuffle, the appellant is stated to have suffered some injuries leading to the registration of a complaint in Crime No.741 of 2004 against the neighbour of the appellant. But a counter complaint in Crime No.766 of 2004 was lodged against the appellant, her husband and all the members of her family, at the instance of the neighbour;

(d) In the FIR in Crime No.741 of 2004, a closure report was sought to be filed by the police, as though there was a mistake of fact. Upon receiving notice of the filing of the closure report, the appellant filed a protest petition before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. Consequently, the closure report was rejected by the learned Magistrate and further investigation was also ordered;

(e) However, further investigation was not carried out, forcing the appellant to file Crl.O.P.No.8405 of 2005 on the file of this Court for the transfer of investigation;

(f) In the meantime, the appellant also lodged a complaint against the erring police officials, with the Commissioner of Police on 04.5.2006 and followed it up with a petition in Crl.O.P.No.18492 of 2006. The said petition was disposed of on 16.6.2007, after taking on record, an Action Taken Report filed by the Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to the prosecution to move a petition before the trial Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the pending criminal case C.C.No.5972 of 2006;

(g) However, the appellant again filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.11684 of 2007 seeking alteration of charges, for the inclusion of the offences under Sections 354 and 509, IPC. The same was disposed of on 24.4.2007, directing the Public Prosecutor to take action under Section 216 of the Code;

(h) Thereafter, the trial in the criminal case commenced and the appellant, who was the de facto complainant, had a tiff with the Assistant Public Prosecutor handling the case. A complaint was lodged by the appellant against the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who was also a lady. The appellant also filed Crl.O.P.No.4167 of 2008 on the file of this Court for a direction to appoint a different Public Prosecutor. When the said petition came up, the Assistant Public Prosecutor recused herself and the Director of Prosecutions appointed another Assistant P