M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. On finding two contradictory views of two learned Judges, qua a petition filed seeking a direction to the police to register a cognizable offence, the following reference has been made:

"These Criminal original Petitions have been filed to direct the police to register the complaint of the petitioners lodged before the police.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. A learned single Judge of this Court in Sugeshan Transport Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai and another, reported in 2016 (2) LW Criminal 499, has held that such a petition is not maintainable. However this view has not been accepted by another learned single Judge of this Court, in K. Ragupathy Vs. Commissioner of Police, Chennai and another, reported in 2017 (3) MLJ Crl 309.

4. As on date, two contradictory views have been expressed by two learned single judges on this issue. It is therefore important for this Court to settle the law on this issue, in order to remove the ambiguity that prevails as on date.

5. A petition to direct the police to register the complaint is being filed on a regular basis before this Court and therefore, it becomes very important to settle the law and have a clarity as to the maintainability of such petitions.

6. I, therefore, deem it fit that this issue may be directed to be placed before a Division Bench in order to resolve the conflict and to attain a clarity regarding the maintainability of a petition for registration of a complaint by police.

7. Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge with a request to constitute a Division Bench in this regard."

Resultantly, all such petitions filed immediately after lodging an information, which was not registered are posted before us. On perusal, we find that in almost all the cases there is no compliance of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Prima facie it also appears that most of the complaints involve not very serious offences.

2. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions:

The decision in Lalita Kumari's case merely deals with the powers and duties of the Police Officer under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. Thus, it does not take away the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such a power inheres in the Court. It is also provided in the Constitution of India. A mere alternative remedy per se would not oust the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Single Judge in Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police J-2, Adayar Police Station Adyar, Chennai 600 020 and others [2016-2-L.W. (Crl.) 499] has not considered the earlier decisions. More often, the directions of Apex Court in Lalita Kumari's case are not complied with by the police. The procedure under Section 156(3) is more complex. The decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409] has to be seen in its own context. It did not take note the earlier decision in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) (SC) [2006 (1) CTC 666]. The power available to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The order passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not an executive or administrative one but purely judicial, directing the police to perform its statutory duty. The Registry cannot insist for an affidavit, which is an alien procedure. There is no law that mandates filing an affidavit.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that circulars have been issued in tune with the Lalita Kumari's case. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be sparingly used and it cannot be used to circumvent a specific provision. The power exercised by the Police Officer is executive and administrative in nature and the same cannot be done or directed to be done by this Court. In all the cases compliance under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. has not been made. Most of the