The court emphasized that a complaint should not be motivated by revenge and must be examined on its merits.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar Standing counsel for R1 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

The petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to take cognizance of the complaint dated 01.09.2025 and to take action against the second respondent.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent, while securing the job as Police Constable in the Pondicherry Police Department, not disclosed the fact that he has already enrolled as an advocate and has simply stated his degree as B.A.B.L. and had been working as Police Constable and only recently, he has filed an application to cancel his enrollment, after 15 years. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the second respondent has committed serious misconduct and action to be taken to debar the second respondent.

3. A careful perusal of the complaint would clearly indicate that the complaint has been preferred only in order to take revenge against the second respondent as the petitioner was convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 based on the complaint of the second respondent. Hence, we are of the view that as long as the second respondent has not practiced, as a matter of right the petitioner cannot seek a direction through the Court.

4. Be that as it may, since the complaint appears to be pending with the respondent Bar council, the same should be disposed of on it own merits as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity to both sides.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.