JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the basis of the previous complaint and repeated wherein earlier complaint given by one Ganeshan( the third respondent herein) was duly enquired and closed by the above said second respondent.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the second respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the basis of the previous complaint and repeated wherein earlier complaint given by one Ganeshan( the third respondent herein) was duly enquired and closed by the above said second respondent.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the complaint received from the third respondent, the respondent police registered CSR No.366 of 2022 on 09.07.2022 and it is pending. According to the petitioner she intended to construct first floor of her old house with the held of the third respondent who is a mason and fixed Rs.15 lakhs for construction. The petitioner gave Rs.15,50,500 /-to the third respondent, but he demanded Rs.3 lakhs more , under these circumstances she gave complaint to the respondent police, they conducted enquiry and closed the matter. Again it was reopened and the petitioner was called for enquiry.

3. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

4. In this original petition, the petitioner seeks a direction of this Court against the respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry based on the complaint received by the respondent police.

5. 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.

6. In the instant case, the third respondent gave criminal complaint against the petitioner alleging some offences.

7. 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.

8. 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, it is reproduced hereunder:-

(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the