Judgment :- This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the first respondent herein to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner herein dated 22.12.2006 and investigate the same in accordance with law. 2. Thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondents and resisted the petition even without filing a counter statement, contending that the petition is not even fit for admission and that the same should be dismissed in limine. 3. The submissions made by Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also by Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents have been heard. 4. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been sought to be invoked by filing this petition seeking a direction to the first respondent herein that a criminal case should be registered and investigated upon based on the complaint of the petitioner herein dated 22.12.2006. To invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner should have made out a case (i) that the allegations made in the complaint coupled with the documents, if any, produced along with the complaint make out a case for a cognizable offence either bailable or non-bailable; and (ii) that the denial of such a direction will result in grave injustice or abuse of process of law. 5. In this case, the petitioners prayer is resisted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the respondents, contending that both the conditions mentioned above are absent in this case and hence the petitioner shall be held not entitled to the relief sought for in this petition. Whenever a person lodges a complaint with the police informing that a cognizable offence has been committed by a known or unknown person and the police officer concerned fails or refuses to register a case, then the person aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the officer in charge of the police station may send the substance of the complaint, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned and the Superintendent of police in turn, if he is satisfied that the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him. This procedure is laid down in Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: "Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence." 6. In case, the Superintendent of Police also neglects or refuses to investigate the case or direct an investigation to be made, then the aggrieved party may furnish the information to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., who in turn, may order an investigation to be made even without taking cognizance of the offence by forwarding the information to the police for registration of a case and investigation. The aggrieved person (complainant) shall have another remedy by preferring a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 7. It is well settled that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised only to counter the miscarriage of justice and misuse of process of Court. It has also been settled that in case of availability of effective and efficacious alternative remedy, as a rule of prudence, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised. It has also been settled that in case of availability of effective and efficacious alternative remedy, as a rule of prudence, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised. In this case, as pointed out supra, there are effective and efficacious remedy to get the grievance of the petitioner herein (complainant) redressed by taking recourse to the above said provisions, viz., Sections 156 (3) and 200 Cr.P.C. Even assuming that facts of a case may go to show that directing the petitioner to have recourse to the above said procedure invoking the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C will result in hardship and misuse of process of Court, since the police might have chosen not to follow the repeated directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court that the police have no other alternative except to register a case, when the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the petitioner is bound to fail on merits of the case as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), because no prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner for the commission of a cognizable offence. 8. No doubt the de facto complainant, while furnishing the information to the police or to the Magistrate, as the case may be, regarding the commission of offences, they need not cite the relevant penal provisions and it is for the concerned police officer or the Magistrate to find out which penal provision has been attracted and take necessary action. On the other hand, when one comes to the High Court with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with the allegation that the police officer has not chosen to register a case in spite of the fact that the allegations made in the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to point out which penal provision has been attracted, so that it could be ascertained whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable. This requirement will apply with vigour and rigour, when the petitioner has got the services of a legal practitioner. As the petitioner has not pointed out any specific penal provision attracted by the facts alleged in the complaint, this Court accepts the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. As the petitioner has not pointed out any specific penal provision attracted by the facts alleged in the complaint, this Court accepts the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Even assuming that the person, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for a direction to register a case, need not point out any specific penal provision in the petition and it would be suffice to point out during argument that the allegations found in the complaint attract a penal provision, in this case, after carefully going through the contents of the complaint and the facts of the case, this Court comes to a conclusion that the facts do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but only a non-cognizable offence. 9. The case of the petitioner is that one Jeyalakshmi @ Ponnamani, abetted by her husband Sekar, with the intention of usurping the property having door No.53 belonging to the petitioners husband, Akkas Komaz, who is now no more, created an agreement for sale and made a false claim by filing a suit for specific performance during his life time in O.S.No.139 of 1994 before the competent civil Court; that during the pendency of the said civil suit, the petitioners husband Akkas Komaz died, pursuant to which, the petitioner was brought on record in the original suit; that subsequently the case was renumbered as O.S.No.330 of 2004; that thereafter due to lack of communication, the petitioner could not appear and the suit was decreed in favour of the above said Jeyalakshmi @ Ponnamani and that subsequently the decree was executed and the petitioner was evicted from the house in execution proceedings. A reading of the complaint will show that the present complaint is directed against the decree obtained in the civil Court and the possession obtained by the above said Jeyalakshmi @ Ponnamani through a competent Court in the execution proceedings. 10. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the decree itself was obtained using a forged and fabricated document. When the document itself withstood the scrutiny of a civil Court and a decree had been passed based on the above said document. 10. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the decree itself was obtained using a forged and fabricated document. When the document itself withstood the scrutiny of a civil Court and a decree had been passed based on the above said document. To nullify the decree, the petitioner cannot be allowed to straight away prefer a complaint stating that the document, which withstood the scrutiny of the civil Court, stating that the same was forged or fabricated. On the other hand, incase the document based on which the decree was obtained is a forged or fabricated one, then the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to move the concerned civil Court for giving a finding regarding the same and preferring a complaint in writing to the Judicial Magistrate, if the said Court comes to a conclusion that a forged or fabricated document had been used in the judicial proceedings. Moreover in this case, the petitioner herein not only preferred to remain exparte after making appearance initially in the civil suit, but also chose to suffer an exparte decree based on the disputed document. In addition to that the said decree has also been executed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during his arguments, has submitted that a civil appeal filed on the appellate Court challenging the decree passed in the said suit is also pending. If it is so, then all the arguments advanced before this Court regarding the genuineness and validity of the disputed document, including the contention that the same is a fabricated and forged one, could be raised before the appellate Court and if proved to be successful, can also ask the said appellate Court to prefer a complaint or to direct the trial Court to prefer a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, if the petitioner is allowed to set the criminal law in motion against a document which has withstood the scrutiny of the Court and merged with a decree of a competent Court, the same alone will amount to misuse of the process of Court and the same cannot be allowed to happen. 11. 11. Considering all the above said aspects, this Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case for the issue of a direction to register a case based on her complaint dated 22.12.2006 as prayed for in this petition; that this petition is nothing but an attempt to misuse of the process of Court and that the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the result, this petition is dismissed.