1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to direct the first respondent herein to register the complaint, dated 06-09-2006.

2. In the instant case, the petitioner who has no connection whatsoever with the judicial proceeding, lost her dwelling house due to miskenning judicial approach and irresponsible conduct of the persons concerned.

3. The material averments stated in the petition can be summarised as follows:

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing New No. 1, Old No. 7, Seven Hills, 5th Main Road, Kasturibai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. She purchased the same by virtue of a sale deed dated 17-12-1974 and since then she has become absolute owner. Some 30 years' ago, the same has been let out to one V.S. Krishnan and for the past four years, he has not paid rent. The petitioner has locked the house mentioned in the petition and a portion of the same has been let out to Subham Trading Company. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, a notice has been affixed on the outer door of the house mentioned in the petition in the name of Mr. Sathia Prakash, Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. The petitioner has come to know that a judicial proceeding is pending in between Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., New Delhi (IREDA) and one M/s. Maha Krishna Financial Services Ltd., Chennai. In the notice affixed it is stated that the property mentioned in the petition has been brought for public sale. The notice in question has been affixed by active conspiracy of IREDA Officials without verifying the ownership of the property. The petitioner has issued a legal notice dated 16-05-2006 to the Recovery Officer. Even after receipt of the same, the Recovery Officer has conducted sale and subsequently, confirmed the sale. Since the entire proceedings have been made with the conspiracy of the persons concerned, a complaint dated 06-09-2006 has been given to the first respondent and so far no action has been taken. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

4. In the counter filed by the first respondent it is averred that the letter dated 06-09-2006 given by the petitioner has been enquired into and since it is nothing but a civil matter, the same has been closed and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is stated that the third respondent has initiated the proceeding in R.C. No. 210 of 2002. The second respondent on the basis of Recovery Certificate has passed further orders. The second respondent has issued a sale notice and subsequently, sale has been conducted in accordance with law. The second respondent is entitled to get protection as per Section 3 of The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (59 of 1985). The second respondent has not done any infraction. The criminal proceeding against the second respondent is clearly barred under Section 33 of the Recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Even as per Section 77, IPC, such protection is available. Further, from the date of attachment (31-10-2005) upto confirmation of sale (02-06-2006), no person has come forward with any petition nor raised any objection and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. In the counter filed on the side of the third respondent, it is averred that the third respondent is a public financial institution under Section 4 A of the Companies Act. No complaint can be registered without the consent of Central Government or State Government. The third respondent has had money dealings with M/s. Maha Krishna Financial Services Limited, Chennai. Since the said M/s. Maha Krishna Financial Services Limited, Chennai has not discharged its liability, O.A. No. 665 of 2000 has been instituted before Debt Recovery Tribunal wherein a final order ha