Judgment 1. In Crl.O.P.NO.3045/2009 the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent to register the petitioners complaint dated 30.1.2009 given by the petitioner and to deal with the same in accordance with law and in Crl.O.P.No.3051/2009 the petitioner seeks for police protection to the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint given by the petitioner dated 30.1.2009 was acknowledged by issuing C.S.R by the respondent. When the petitioner wanted to commence the contract work awarded by L & T, the brother of the Chairman of Kathivakkam Municipality along with his henchman obstructed the progress of work and demanded huge amount, since the work is being done within the jurisdiction of Kathivakkam Municipality, in which, one Murugavel is the Chairman. 3. The learned counsel further submits that the complaint was assaulted with deadly weapons and he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Ponneri. The car of the complainant was also damaged. Though the complaint was entertained and enquiry has been conducted, a case has not been registered and in the result, because of the continuous threat, the work could not be commenced and therefore, seeks for registration of the case. He also submits that the proposed accused belongs to ruling political party and that is the reason why the case was not taken on file by the respondents. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Sid) submits that on receipt of the complaint, enquiry has been conducted and it is pending. On perusal of the complaint dated 30.1.2009 I am of the considered opinion that commission of cognizable offence is alleged. To substantiate such commission of offence, the petitioner has produced Wound Certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Ponneri. He has also annexed the photographs of the vehicle, which was damaged. 5. I have perused the materials available on record. Though the respondent had taken the case on file, under the guise of conducting enquiry kept it pending from 30.1.2009 without any progress. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for issuing direction to the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District to register the case on the basis of the complaint dated 30.1.200 and depute some other investigating officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police and proceed further. 6. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for issuing direction to the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District to register the case on the basis of the complaint dated 30.1.200 and depute some other investigating officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police and proceed further. 6. Since the petitioner may have to continue the construction activities, the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District is directed to give police protection to the petitioner so that the work may continue, if the petitioner is otherwise entitle to continue the work. 7. Both the petitions are ordered accordingly.