Judgment Complaining that the second respondent, namely the Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station (G1 Law and Order), Madurai City, failed to register a case and investigate the same based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.05.2008, even though the contents of the complaint disclosed cognizable offences, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.05.2008, investigate the same and submit a final report in accordance with law. 2. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. P.V. Elangovan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and by Mr.Siva Ayyappan, learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein claims to be the paternal grandmother of the children of one P.Annadurai, named Sujeetha and Nandhini. According to the complaint allegedly lodged by the petitioner herein on the file of Thilagar Thidal Police Station (G1 Law and Order), Madurai City, the said children were kidnapped on 20.05.2008 by the brother of the mother of the said children from the custody of the petitioner and her husband with the help of five other persons, despite the protest made by the petitioner and her husband. Though the petitioner, in her complaint, would have stated that the brother of the mother of the children, with the help of his henchmen, took away the children from the custody of the petitioner and her husband, it was made clear in the complaint itself that the children were ordinarily in the care and custody of their father, namely Annadurai, the younger son of the petitioner herein. It is also the admitted fact that the said Annadurai along with his wife Rajalakshmi and children were residing in a separate house. On the other hand, it is her contention that every week, on holidays, her younger son used to leave the children in her care and custody and that on 20.05.2008, while the children had been kept in her custody, they were kidnapped by Lakshmanan, the brother of Rajalakshmi along with five others. On the other hand, it is her contention that every week, on holidays, her younger son used to leave the children in her care and custody and that on 20.05.2008, while the children had been kept in her custody, they were kidnapped by Lakshmanan, the brother of Rajalakshmi along with five others. The further statement made in the complaint is that immediately after the occurrence, the petitioner contacted her sons, who informed her that the family members of the father-in-law of Annadurai came and picked up a quarrel with him and that when the petitioner contacted the father-in-law of Annadurai and his relatives, they revealed the fact that the children were in their custody. 4. A reading of the complaint will show that the complaint is bereft of many vital particulars. The fact whether the children allegedly kidnapped from the custody of the petitioner were minors has not been stated anywhere in the complaint and not even the age of anyone of the said children has been provided in the complaint. From the contents of the complaint, it is obvious that the mother of the children, who is now residing with her parents, is having the custody of the children. Children are admittedly now in the custody of their mother. In such circumstances, if the father of the children wants to get the custody of the children, he can initiate appropriate proceeding in a proper Court. A grandmother cannot have a better right for having the custody of the children than the mother of the children. The police have rightly refused to register a case, as the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence. A civil dispute between the husband and wife regarding the custody of the children is sought to be given a criminal colour by the husband making his mother to lodge a complaint. Therefore, on facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that the police have rightly refrained from registering a case based on the above said complaint of the petitioner dated 21.05.2008. 5. Even otherwise, for the non-registration of a case by the police, approaching the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction has been held to be improper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Even otherwise, for the non-registration of a case by the police, approaching the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction has been held to be improper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC), a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 490 (SC), a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the police were duty bound to register a case, if the complaint received by them disclosed a cognizable offence and that for the failure on the part of the police to register a case, the complainant could not seek remedy by way of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was held in Sakiri Vasu's case that the remedy, in such cases, for the complainant was to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and in case of inaction on his part also, the complainant would approach the Judicial Magistrate by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to investigate the matter. In Aleque Padamsee's case, it was held that in case of refusal on the part of the police officials to register a case, even though the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, the modalities to be adopted by the complainant were as set out in Section 190 r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C. 6. Those two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to be considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in the Principal Bench (JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL) in G.Arokiya Marie v. Superintendent of Police reported in 2008(2) MLJ (Crl) 796 and it was held therein that the prohibition for entertaining a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to register a case, was not absolute and that in appropriate cases, namely cases of serious nature requiring immediate action so as to prevent the evidence getting erased, such directions would be issued. In all the three cases cited supra, it was held in clear and unambiguous terms that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. The above said learned Single Judge of this Court has given some illustrations of the cases (murder, attempt to murder, wherein grievous injuries have been caused, robbery, dacoity, rape and attempt to rape) in which, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for directing the Station House Officer to register the complaint. 7. Applying the said ratio decidendi to the facts of the present case, this Court comes to the conclusion that this is not one such case, in which the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be used to give a direction to the police to register a case. As pointed out supra, factually there is no cognizable case made out by the averments made in the complaint. Even assuming that the allegations may attract the offences of trespass into the residential house and assault, they are not heinous crimes as listed out above to make it an exceptional case so that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to give a direction to the police to register a case. 8. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.