The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of respecting and protecting the dignity and authority of the courts, as well as the need for police officials to perform their duties as prescribed by law.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnor/third respondent for his wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 16.3.2012 and made in Crl.O.P.No.2740 of 2012.

2. It is revealed from the records that on 28.8.2009, the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, wherein the petitioner has stated that under the guise of recovery of stolen jewellery one Mr. Sampath, who was working as Head Constable at E1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai and presently working as SSI, had seized 203.730 grams of gold jewellery from the pawn shop of the petitioner.

3. He has also stated that the said jewellery were not either produced before the concerned court or kept under the custody of the police. But according to the petitioner, the whereabouts of the jewellery, which were recovered by the said Sampath (HC) were not known. Therefore, to initiate necessary action, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 28.8.2009. Since there was no effective action on the part of the Commissioner of Police in registering the case, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition in Crl.O.P.No.2740 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the third respondent police to register the case based on his complaint, dated 28.8.2009.

4. After hearing both sides, this Court on 16.3.2012 has passed an order directing the third respondent, who is the contemnor herein to register the case based on the complaint, dated 28.8.2009 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, provided any cognizable offence is made out and take up the investigation and proceed further in accordance with law.

5. According to the petitioner, the above order has not been complied with by the third respondent and since the third respondent has flouted the order of this Court on ground, the petitioner has come forward with this petition to punish the third respondent being the contemnor under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. It is obvious to note here that on 1.2.2013, this Court has passed an order wherein it is stated that it appears from the CD file, which was produced by the third respondent, a case was registered on 20.12.2012 based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, dated 28.8.2009. But there was no progress in the investigation. This Court has also observed in the above said order that the complainant, who is the petitioner herein, was so far not called to the police station for the purpose of examination under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., by way of investigation and that the investigation is yet to be started.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who had represented on behalf of the contemnor, had also sought for a direction at the time of passing the above order on 1.2.2013 to expedite the investigation and make some progress in the investigation. Accordingly, Mr. Ravisekar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, was directed to supervise and monitor the progress of the investigation and see that the investigation is completed within 6.3.2013 so as to enable the investigating officer to file the final report before the appropriate court.

8. It is manifested from the records that the respondent herein/contemnor has filed three status reports. The first report was filed on 18.1.2013. The second report was filed on 5.3.2013 and the third report was filed on 25.10.2013.

9. In the first status report, which was filed on 18.1.2013, the respondent, in paragraph 7, has stated that the petitioner had sent a complaint, dated 28.8.2009 to the Commissioner of Police and the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station through the higher officials and during the relevant point of time, his predecessor, namely, Mr. Mannarmannan was transferred on 23.7.2009 and that he had assumed charge only on 29.6.2011.

10. He has also stated that based on the petition filed b