Judgment : This is an offshoot of an earlier writ petition in W.P.No.19999 of 1992 filed by the petitioner, wherein this Court by an order dated 21. 1993 directed the Tahsildar, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk and the Collector of Madras to implement the order of the Collector dated 14. 1992 within one month from 21. 1993, if necessary with the aid of the police, when the petitioners went to the property in question to put up a shed on 22. 1993, a power agent of one Muthuswamy threatened with rowdy elements of dire consequences. Thereafter it is alleged then the petitioners preferred a complaint to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent not only refused to receive the complaint of the petitioners, but also threatened them to maintain status quo and directed them to obtain orders from the civil court. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners made a complaint on 22. 1993 to respondents 1 and 2, followed by another on 22. 1993 against the refusal of the 3rd respondent to receive the complaint from the petitioners. It is at that stage, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take action on the complaint of the petitioners dated 22. 1993. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, I directed issue of notice to the Government Advocate. Today the learned Government Advocate produced the relevant case records and the police officer concerned is also present. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions states that the action is being taken on the complaint of the petitioners made to respondents 1 and 2, which has been referred to 3rd respondent. 3. I have perused the records produced by the learned Government Advocate and, I am of the view, that the 3rd respondent has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Whenever a citizen comes to the police station with the complaint, it is incumbent on the police officer concerned, in this case the 3rd respondent, to receive and register the same and proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Whenever a citizen comes to the police station with the complaint, it is incumbent on the police officer concerned, in this case the 3rd respondent, to receive and register the same and proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. I am told that preliminary enquiry is being made by the 3rd respondent into the complaint of the petitioners, for which I do not see any justification on the facts and circumstances of the case, and especially, in view of the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.19999 of 1992. Admittedly survey has been done and property has been demarcated. In such circumstances, I do not know what made the 3rd respondent to direct the petitioners to obtain orders from the Civil Court. Time and again this Court has repeatedly condemned the attitude of the police officers for not taking proper action on the complaints given by the general public. In this case when the petitioners have given a complaint to the 3rd respondent, it is the duty of the 3rd respondent to register the same and proceed furthere in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Government Advocate fairly admits that it has not been done so. The Civil Court has also passed a decree in the declaratory suit. Survey and demarcation have been done. In such circumstances, it is for the 3rd respondent to set the Criminal Law into motion and take appropriate action to see that the petitioners are allowed to enjoy the property as per the order of the Collector and Civil Court and also the order of this Court in W.P.No.19999 of 1992. Therefore, I direct the 3rd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioners and take appropriate action within a period of three weeks from today. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.