Judgment :- The petitioner is an Advocate at Baradur Village, Chidambaram Taluk. He filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction, directing the first respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch to implement the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram vide letter dated 212. 2008 in Letter No.2651/2008 and to register a case. 2. The petitioner filed an objection petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram on 20.02.2006 which was examined by the learned Magistrate under 156 (3) Cr.Pc. Thereafter, a letter was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the first respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore either to investigate the case by himself or by any person authorised by him and to submit a report within two months. But it was stated that no F.I.R was registered and with an endorsement U.N, the file was closed and R.C.S.1/2007 was served on the petitioner. When the petitioner once again reminded the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate forwarded another letter to the first respondent asking him to register a F.I.R and forward the objection petition filed by the petitioner and all the documents enclosed along with the objection petition to that Court. When that was was not done, the petitioner moved this Court. 3. It must be stated that the petitioner himself is a practicing Advocate and he must be aware of the decision of the Court in this regard. The Supreme Court while considering the role of the Magistrate vis a vis the investigation by the police under Section 156 vide its judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 deprecated the practice of high Court entertaining the writ petition in such circumstances. The Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of the said judgment held that though an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is any alternative remedy, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. In the very same judgment in paragraphs 11, 15 to 18, it was observed as follows: "11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. 16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar v. J.A.C Saldanha (SCC: AIR para 19). 17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. 18. Section 156(3) CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. 18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution." 4. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to work out his right by making appropriate application before the learned magistrate. No costs.