Judgment : 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition to direct the respondents to take appropriate action on the complaint dated 14.6.2007 lodged by him. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the father of one T. Srikanth and the petitioners family decided to conduct the marriage of their son with one Vandana, who is already known to the petitioners son. It is also submitted that due to persuasion made by the parents of the said Vandana, the petitioners son T. Sirkanth was constrained to marry Vandana on 7.2.2007 at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter, there is not cohabitation, since the petitioners son and Vandana have never lived together as husband and wife till this date. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the petitioners sons wish and desire to marry the said Ms. Vandana, only with the consent of the petitioner, namely, the father of T. Srikanth and other relatives, the marriage was fixed to be held on 18.6.2007 between T.Srikanth and the said Vandana. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the petitioners family heard about certain cases pending against the family members of the said Vandana and as a result, there was some misunderstanding and dispute between the two families and while that being so, on 13.6.2007, at about 10.30 p.m. the said Vandana and her parents along with some rowdy elements have trespassed into the residence of the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. It is also submitted that due to such high handed and arrogant act of the said Vandana and her parents, the petitioners family members constrained to leave their own house on 14.6.2007. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of this incident, the petitioner has given a complaint dated 14.6.2007 to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, and thereafter as per the direction of the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner lodged a similar complaint before the Inspector of Police, R8 All Women Police Station, Vadapalani, on 14.6.2007. 4. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the complaint containing certain allegations constituting cognizable offence, the second respondent police, for the reasons best known to them, has not registered the FIR as per the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court to direct the second respondent police to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.6.2007. 5. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the proposed accused person in this case vehemently contended that Vandana is a legally wedded wife of the petitioners son by name T. Srikanth. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the purposed accused person that the marriage took place between the said Vandana and T.Srikanth as early as 7.2.2007 is a registered marriage, and the said fact was also admitted by the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that in view of the admitted fact that Vandana is none else than the wife of T.Srikanth, Vandana is entitled to enter and reside in the house of the petitioner herein. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the proposed accused person that in view of the above said fact, the complaint given by the petitioner cannot be registered, as the legally wedded wife is entitled to enter and reside along with her husband. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the complaint was given by the petitioner initially before the first respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Police, and as per the directions of the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner approached the second respondent and the second respondent police has also received the complaint dated 14.6.2007 and the same is pending for registration of the FIR. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the petition and the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.6.2007. 9. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the petition and the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.6.2007. 9. The materials available on record disclose that the marriage between the said T.Srikanth, the son of the petitioner herein, and the said Vandana took place on 7.2.2007 under certain compelling reasons, as per the averments contained in the petition, and subsequently, they have fixed another date, namely, 18.6.2007 for conducting the marriage openly and publicly. It is also seen that in the meantime, there was some misunderstanding between two families in view of certain cases pending against the family members of the said Vandana and thereafter problem started. 10. A perusal of the complaint discloses a specific and definite allegation to the effect that the said Vandana, namely, the alleged wife of the said T. Srikanth, the petitioner‘ son, after the marriage, never resided in the family property of the petitioner herein, namely, at Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, Chennai and the marriage itself was not cohabited, and as such, the marriage was proposed to be held on 18.6.2007 publicly. A perusal of the complaint further discloses a definite allegation to the effect that the said Vandana all of a sudden trespassed into the house of the petitioner, on 13.6.2007 say about 10.30 p.m. with unknown rowdy elements and threatened the petitioner and other family members with dire consequences and as a result, the petitioner and other family members were compelled to leave their own house. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there are certain specific and definite allegations made out in the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.6.2007 given by the petitioner, constituting certain cognizable offence. 11. The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) AIR 2006 SC 1322 : (2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 347 has held as follows : “4. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen under Section 154 of the Code are no more res integra. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. This Court after examining the whole gamut and intricacies of the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code has arrived at the finding in paras 31 & 32 of the judgment as under: “31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case of the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154 (1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157…. In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who is satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.” “32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression “information ” without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, “reasonable complaint” and “credible information” are used. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression “information ” without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, “reasonable complaint” and “credible information” are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word information in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, ‘ reasonableness‘ or ‘ credibility‘ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word “information” without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that ‘every complaint or information‘ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that ‘every complaint‘ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing. The word ‘complaint‘ which occurred in previous two Codes on 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that pale the word ‘information‘ was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 189 (c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua nonfor recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must discloses a cognizable offence”. Finally this Court in para 33 said : “33. An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua nonfor recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must discloses a cognizable offence”. Finally this Court in para 33 said : “33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register, a case on the basis of such information”. 5. The views expressed by this Court in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above leave no manner of doubt, that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence”. 12. In view of the well settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision cited supra it is crystal clear that it is the mandatory duty of the second respondent police, namely, the Inspector of Police, to register the FIR and to proceed with the investigation, in accordance with law. But, unfortunately, in spite of the first respondent namely, the Commissioner of Police, directing the petitioner to give complaint to the second respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, R 8 All Women Police Station, and even after receiving the complaint, no action has been taken by the second respondent police, as per the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 154 Cr. P.C. This Court is of the considered view that in a matter involving matrimonial disputes, the disputes should be settled amicably through Mediation and Conciliation. 13. It is seen from the complaint that all of a sudden on 13.6.2007 the said Vandana alleged to have entered into the house of the petitioner at 10.30 p.m. along with her parents and unknown rowdy elements and threatened the family members of the petitioner with dire consequences. 13. It is seen from the complaint that all of a sudden on 13.6.2007 the said Vandana alleged to have entered into the house of the petitioner at 10.30 p.m. along with her parents and unknown rowdy elements and threatened the family members of the petitioner with dire consequences. It is also further stated in the complaint that many unknown persons were placed around the residence for surveillance in support of the said Vandana and therefore, the petitioner and his family members were afraid that their life is in great danger at the hands, of the above said persons. It is also pertinent to note that in the complaint itself, it is mentioned by the petitioner that the said Vandana claims to be the legally wedded wife of his son T. Srikanth, based upon ceratin fabricated documents. In view of the above stated position, this Court cannot go into the legality of the marriage said to have taken place on 7.2.2007 between the son of the petitioner, viz. T.Srikanth, and the said Vandana at this stage. Further, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to the effect that at no point of time the said Vandana resided in the house of the petitioner after the alleged marriage took place between herself and T.Srikant son of the petitioner, on 7.2.2007 till 13.6.2007 and on that date at 10.30 p.m. she alleged to have entered the petitioners house suddenly with henchmen and threatened the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences, this Court has no other alternative except to give direction as prayed for by the petitioner herein. 14. This Court has also heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the proposed accused person elaborately in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though the proposed accused person has no locus standi to raise voice at this stage i. e. even before registering the FIR, in view of the interest of justice. 15. It is also made clear that the second respondent shall proceed with the investigation, after registering the First Information Report on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.6.2007, in accordance with law and to file the final report based upon the outcome of the investigation with in a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Criminal original petition is disposed of accordingly.