Judgment : 1. R. Gandhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with this petition for direction to the 3rd respondent namely, the Inspector of Police, J-5, Sasthri Nagar Police Station, Adyar, Chennai, to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by him, dated 12.10.2006 etc. 2. The learned senior counsel pointed out that the petitioner is one of the members of Travancore Royal Family, and his family owns a property to an extent of 4.06 acres situated and comprised in Old S.No. 57/1, T.S.No. 13/253 Part, in Block No. 21, Padmanabha Nagar, Adyar, Chennai -20. It is further submitted that in the very same place, a palace is also situated, which were under the occupation of the Royal family members, as they have inherited the property by a Will executed by H.H. Padmanabha Dasa, the former ruler of Travancore, who was the absolute owner of the said property. 3. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that there is a dispute in respect of the sale of the undivided share and specific performance of the unenforceable agreement and further, suits were pending and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo, besides an order of injunction, restraining from alienation. It is submitted that this being the position, the alleged accused with the help of his henchmen illegally trespassed into the palace high-handedly and threatened the family members of the petitioner with dire consequences, if they do not hand over possession to them within a week. 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned senior counsel, that the petitioner family, immediately approached the Police and gave a complaint, dated 12.10.2006, before the 3rd respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has not taken any action and not even registered the case. Thereafter, certain untoward incident took place and the petitioner was constrained to give series of complaints, dated 14.10.2006, 14.11.2006, 22.11.2006 and finally on 6.12.2006, alleging the illegal activities of the anti-social and rowdy elements to the effect that they have forcibly trespassed into the premises and started demolishing work in the palace, where the family members of the petitioner were residing. 5. 5. The learned senior counsel contended that the Police Officials have not performed their mandatory duty as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that till date no case was registered by the Police. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the petition and the entire materials available on record, as annexed in the typed set, by the petitioner. 8. It is very unfortunate to note that in spite of the specific complaint, containing allegations constituting cognizable offence, the 3rd respondent Police has not chosen to register the case. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also produced the complaint copy, dated 12.10.2006, given to the 3rd respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that thereafter, the petitioner and his family members have given series of complaints, before the 3rd respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, dated 14.10.2006, 14.11.2006, 22.11.2006, 23.11.2006, and ultimately approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar by giving a complaint dated 6.12.2006. 9. All the above materials clearly show that in spite of the specific complaint repeatedly given by the petitioner, the respondent-Police, namely, neither the 3rd respondent-Police, the Inspector of Police, nor the higher official, namely, the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, has taken any action in accordance with law. 10. The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N. C. T.) of Delhi (2006) 1 MLJ Crl. 347 has held as follows: “4. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a cognisable 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. 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. (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 on the basis of the information disclosing a cognisable 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 or 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 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 cognisable 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 cognisable 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. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word “information” in Section 154(1) unlike the Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the Police Officer shouldn‘t refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognisable 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 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 nonfor 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 cognisable 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. 35. 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.” 11. The well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, as cited supra, makes it crystal clear that under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., it is the mandatory duty of the Police Officer to register the case on a complaint of the cognisable offence by a citizen. The well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, as cited supra, makes it crystal clear that under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., it is the mandatory duty of the Police Officer to register the case on a complaint of the cognisable offence by a citizen. But strangely, the respondent-Police has not cared to follow the mandatory requirement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., in registering the case. 12. In view of the sequence of events that took place in the matter and further a perusal of the complaint given by the petitioner repeatedly, to the Police Officials, shows that the petitioner has knocked the doors of the Police Station and higher officials, seeking the relief and for immediate action against the culprits. The Police Officials have not raised their little finger in respect of the complaint given by the petitioner. In view of the specific provisions contained under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., and in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, as cited supra, this Court is constrained to direct the third respondent, the Inspector of Police, to register the case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 6.12.2006; to investigate the matter in accordance with law, and thereafter file the final report within three months‘ therefrom. 13. It is open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of this Court in the event of the respondent-Police not taking any further action as per the direction of this Court. 14. With the above direction, this petition is ordered accordingly.