ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed directing the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with or disturb the peaceful conduct of the Petitioner's business offering health therapies under the name and style of King Fisher (Ayurvedic Care and Spa) situated at No.8/1, 4th Floor, Hotel Anbu Park, Collector Office Road, Trichy – 620 001 by considering the petitioner's representation dated

09.06.2022.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is conducting business in the name and style of King Fisher (Ayurvedic Care and Spa) situated at No.8/1, 4th Floor, Hotel Anbu Park, Collector Office Road, Trichy – 620 001. After obtaining the proper license from the Government, the petitioner is running the aforesaid massage centre in a peaceful manner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been harassed by the respondents and therefore, he preferred a representation dated 09.06.2022 to the respondents not to interfere or disturb with the peaceful conduct of his business. But till date no action was taken and the respondent Police is continuously harrasing the petitioner. The action of the respondent police is in violation of the Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner filed this Criminal Original 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 (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submits that having received the representation dated 09.06.2022, they have not harassed the petitioner and they are ready to follow the procedures as contemplated in Criminal Procedure Code as well as the directions issued by this Court.

5. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel 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 given by the third respondent.

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. 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 s