ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioners.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the

4th respondent is the daughter-in-law of the first and second petitioners and sister-in-law of the third petitioner. The marriage between the first and second petitioners' son, namely, Sheik Ali and the 4th respondent herein was solemnized on 01.11.2020. After the marriage, the 4th respondent/defacto complainant's husband went to Dubai on 06.01.2021 The 4th respondent/defacto complainant alleged that from 26.01.2021 onwards her husband is not speaking to her phone and the petitioners herein demanded dowry. Thereafter, a reconciliation talk was arranged between two families through Jamath of both families and the 4th respondent took all her belongings from the matrimonial home on 26.01.2021 and thereafter, the defacto complainant's husband, Sheik Ali, came from Dubai for mediation, but the same was failed. Therefore, the 4th respondent/defacto complainant is living separately for the past more than one year. The 4th respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint before the respondent police after one and half years from leaving the matrimonial house. In respect of that complaint the respondent police is harassing the petitioners. Hence, they 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 Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the respondent police has received the complaint from the defacto complainant and CSR.No.18/2022 was given on 28.06.2022 and it is under enquiry. There was a family dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent and the petitioners assured to produce the defaco complainant's husband for enquiry.

5.I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side)

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 the petitioner under the guise of enquiry based on the complaint received by the respondent police.

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 fourth respondent gave criminal complaint against the petitioner alleging some offences.

9.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