ORDER: Mr.K.S. Jayamangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s mother-in-law had lodged a compliant on 22.2.1991 before the first respondent against her relatives about some cognizable offences, but no action was taken by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner’s mother-in-law was compelled to move this Court on 20.3.1991 in Crl.O.P.No. 2712 of 1991 invoking jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. for a direction to the respondents to register the complaint dated 22.2.1991. 2. This Court, by order dated 16.4.1991, directed the first respondent to register the complaint dated 22.2.1991, investigate it and take necessary action, in accordance with law. 3. However, the petitioner complains that the respondents had not taken any action on the complaint of his mother-in-law in these years, which necessitated the petitioner to make a representation on 21.2.2000, on receipt of which, the second respondent herein, by his letter dated 8.7.2001, informed the petitioner that the complaint dated 22.2.1991 is one of civil nature and therefore, no action could be taken on the complaint criminally. 4. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the above Crl.O.P. invoking the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. to direct the fifth respondent, namely, the Inspector General of Police (Crimes), Chennai-4 to take back all the papers and file relatable to the complaint dated 22.2.1991 from the first respondents and handover the same to the fourth respondent for investigating the matter afresh, nearly after one year from the date of receipt of the proceedings dated 18.7.2000 of the second respondent. 5. Mr.K.S. Jayamangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1285, contends that he had not been given any opportunity by the second respondent before deciding that the complaint of the petitioner’s mother-in-law dated 22.2.1991 is one of civil nature. 6.1. In my considered opinion, the said complaint is not filed by the petitioner, but admittedly, by his mother-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner is not an informant of the said complaint. 6.2. 6.1. In my considered opinion, the said complaint is not filed by the petitioner, but admittedly, by his mother-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner is not an informant of the said complaint. 6.2. Even in Bhagwant’s case, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1285, the Apex Court has held that neither the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code nor the principles of natural justice contemplates any obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to a relative of the complainant for providing an opportunity to be heard at the time of the consideration of the report unless such person is the informant, who had lodged the F.I.R. If that be so, I do not find any relevancy of the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the case advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6.3. That apart, there is no convincing explanation on behalf of the petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court, even assuming there was no proper investigation by the first respondent, pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 16.4.1991 nor do I find any bona fide reason for the latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court after the delay of one year from the date of receipt of the letter of the second respondent dated 18.7.2000, holding that the complaint of the mother-in-law of the petitioner is one of civil nature. Even assuming that the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the second respondent dated 18.7.2000, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, he has got effective alternative remedy to file a private complaint before the concerned learned Magistrate, and on receipt of the same, the learned Magistrate is empowered to either order for investigation under Sec. 156(3), Crl.P.C. or take it on the file and conduct an enquiry under Sec. 202, Crl.P.C. 6.4. It is well settled in law, vide: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604, that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where a specific provision is provided in the Criminal Procedure Code, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party, the power conferred under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of the rare; cases. 7. 7. In view of the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604, I do not find any justification to entertain the above O.P. invoking the powers of this Court under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. Hence, this petition is dismissed.