The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the police to strictly comply with the legal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the mandatory registration of FIR for cognizable offenses, the necessity for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases, and the directions for arrest under Section 41A.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner and also consider the representation dated 13.10.2021 made by the petitioner.)

1. This criminal original petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner and also consider the representation dated 13.10.2021 made by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent police is harassing the petitioner based on a false complaint given by the third respondent. The action of the respondent police is in violation of the Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he filed this petition.

3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2015-1-L.W.(Crl.) 318),

(ii) L.N.Nithyanantham vs. the State and others (Crl.O.P(MD)No.1776 of 2021,

(iii) Dorand and others vs. the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil and other another [2016(2)CTC 286: (2016)2 MLJ CRL 437],

(iv) Shanmugavadivel and others vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni and another [2015-2-L.W.(Crl.) 627],

(v) Jagdish Shrivastav vs. the State of Maharashtra and another [S.L.P (Crl.)No.1758 of 2022] and

(vi) Abhyanand Sharma @ Tinku Sharma vs. State of Bihar and another [W.P.(Crl)No.420 of 2021].

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the respondent police received a complaint from the third respondent and made enquiry and the same is pending with the respondent police for further enquiry.

5. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police.

6. In this original petition, the petitioner seeks a direction of this Court against the respondent police not to harass him under the guise of enquiry.

7. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C envisages three circumstances, under which, inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (1) to give effect to an order under the Code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice. The rule of inherent power has its source in the maxim “Quando lex aliquid alique, concedit conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest”” it means that when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which the thing itself cannot exist.

8. In the instant case, the third respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner alleging some offences. But, according to the petitioner, the dispute between him and the private respondents is in civil nature.

9. The criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. The respondent police on investigation of the complaint, if found that the parties are essentially seeking redressal of their civil claim, the police may follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 157(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

10.The power of investigation officer is statutory one. The power to investigate into the cognizable offence is to be legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provision of Chapter XII of the Code. There is no unlimited discretion to act according to one's own choice. The power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition of which that power is granted by the Code itself. Further, the investigation officer is empowered to collect evidence/material during investigation and arrive at a conclusion independently. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the functioning of an Investigating Agency. It may do so only in exceptional circumstances.

11. In Lalithakumari vs. State of U.P [AIR 2014 SC 187], the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized law and gave following directions with regard to registration of F.I.R. For better appreciation,