Judgment : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition to direct the respondent police to register the First Information Report based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 17.7.2007 as per the mandatory requirement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to investigate the same. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a practising Advocate. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioners wife owns certain properties in Koovathur and Kanathur Villages and the petitioner is managing the properties through agricultural workers and himself and his wife were living at Chennai. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner and his family members, certain named persons mentioned in the complaint taking law into their own hands and criminally trespassed into the disputed land compromised under Survey No. 92/2A at Kanathur Village. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners wife also filed a suit and obtained an order of injunction against the named persons in the complaint in I.A. No. 1126 of 2007 in O.S. No. 179 of 2007 on 9.7.2007. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the injunction order copy was also served on those persons, mentioned in the complaint. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 17.7.2007, on reliable information, the petitioner went to the scene and saw the persons mentioned in the complaint along with a mob trespassed in to their land and started certain construction work and while the conduct of such persons were questioned by the petitioner, they have abused the petitioner in a filthy language and also threatened the petitioner and his farm workers with dire consequences. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner has given a complaint narrating the entire events and occurrence on the same day of occurrence i. e. on 17.7.2007 to the respondent police. But the respondent police has not registered the First Information Report in spite of the allegations contained in the complaint constituting certain cognizable offences and only treated the complaint as C.S.R.No.54 of 2007. But the respondent police has not registered the First Information Report in spite of the allegations contained in the complaint constituting certain cognizable offences and only treated the complaint as C.S.R.No.54 of 2007. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent police instead of taking action in accordance with law instructed the petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and obtain orders and only thereafter, the First Information Report would be registered. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with this petition. 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that already a case was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 17.7.2007 on 23.7.2007 in Crime No. 303 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 147, 447 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the complaint copy given by the petitioner dated 17.7.2007 and other materials available on record. 6. It is very unfortunate to note that the petitioner, who himself, a practising Advocate and the son of a leading legal practitioner, has been constrained to approach this Court, with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondent police to comply with the requirements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by registering the First Information Report on the basis of the complaint dated 17.7.2007. It is equally very unfortunate and painful to note that in spite of the allegations contained in the complaint constituting cognizable offences the respondent police instead of registering the First Information Report treated the complaint as petition enquiry by giving C.S.R.No. 54 of 2007 for the reasons best known to the respondent police. It is needless to state that the procedure adopted by the respondent police is unknown to law. 7. The Hon‘ble Apex Court repeatedly held that once a complaint discloses certain cognizable offences, the concerned police officer is mandatorily required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. to register the First Information Report. In one of the leading decisions in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) (2006) 2 Supreme 243 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 347, the Hon‘ble Apex Court held as follows at pp. 348, 349 & 350 of MLJ: “ 4. In one of the leading decisions in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) (2006) 2 Supreme 243 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 347, the Hon‘ble Apex Court held as follows at pp. 348, 349 & 350 of MLJ: “ 4. That the Police Office 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 Harayana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The 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 and 32 of the judgment as under: “ 31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on 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 if 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. “ 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. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word “information” in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1) 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 420 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 of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place 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 non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose 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 non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose 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 manners 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.” Therefore, it is crystal clear that a police officer is mandatorily required to register a case on the basis of the complaint if the same discloses cognizable offence. 8. This Court is also shocked and surprised to note that the respondent police not only refused to take action on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner as per the mandatory requirement under Section 154 of Cr. P.C. but also said to have instructed the petitioner to approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and only after receiving direction from this Court, the First Information Report would be registered. The undisputed fact remains that the respondent police not registered the First Information Report in spite of receiving the complaint on 17.7.2007 containing allegations constituting cognizable offences and resorted to register the First Information Report only on 23.7.2007 and the respondent police has not assigned valid reasons for such delay and lapse on their part. 9. The Tamil Nadu police force is known for its excellent skill and good reputation. But, unfortunately certain police officials were not performing their statutory obligation which would amount to dereliction of duty. It is needless to state that a police official is mandatorily required to perform the statutory obligation under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. in its letter and spirit by registering the First Information Report, in the event of the allegation constituting cognizable offences. But, unfortunately certain police officials were not performing their statutory obligation which would amount to dereliction of duty. It is needless to state that a police official is mandatorily required to perform the statutory obligation under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. in its letter and spirit by registering the First Information Report, in the event of the allegation constituting cognizable offences. Of course, the preference of false and frivolous complaints cannot be ruled out and it is the utmost duty of the police officials to filter such complaints and to take action on a complaint consisting certain definite allegations constituting cognizable offences. Due to the inaction and non registering of the First Information Report in spite of the complaints containing the allegations constituting cognizable offence, this Court is flooded with the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for the relief of directions to the respondent police to register the First Information Report on the basis of their complaint. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is high time that the Director General of Police of this State shall instruct all police officials throughout the State to act in accordance with law by strictly complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. in its letter and spirit. 10. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that already the complaint was registered in Crime No. 303 of 2007, though belatedly on 23.7.2007, this Court is also constrained to direct the respondent police to expedite the investigation and file the final report as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This criminal original petition is ordered accordingly.