JUDGMENT : 1. The petitions are filed to call for the records in Cr.Nos.626 and 553 of 2010 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallur Police Station, Chennai-82 and quash the same. 2. Cr.No.553 of 2010 is a complaint given by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners and others for an alleged occurrence on 15.9.2010. The crux of the complaint is that there is a dispute between the petitioners and the defacto-complainant in respect of the house, in which the 2nd respondent was residing. It is said that the petitioners and others were trying to vacate the defacto-complainant by illegal means and on 15.9.2010 the petitioners and 15 others came to the house of the defacto-complainant and broke open the door, trespassed into the property and threw away the articles and thereby forcibly evicted the defacto-complainant. On the basis of this complaint, a case has been registered by the 1st respondent in Cr.No.553 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Secs.448, 427 and 506(i) IPC. 3. The 2nd complaint was given by an advocate representing the defacto-complainant against the petitioners and others for the subsequent occurrence on 15.9.2010. The crux of the complaint is that the defacto-complainant in the earlier complaint, being a client of the advocate, contacted him and the learned advocate went to the spot. While he was giving legal assistance to the client, the petitioners and others assaulted the advocate and others and abused and intimidated them. Both the complaints were initially given to the respondent police. Since the respondent have not taken any action, the same was presented before the learned Magistrate who forwarded the complaint under Sec.156(3). The 2nd complaint was registered in Cr.No.626 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Secs.341, 504 and 506(ii) IPC. The 1st complaint was registered on 17.9.2010 and the 2nd complaint was registered on 14.10.2010. Aggrieved by taking cognizance of these two cases, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Mr.T. Devendran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant, Bhargavi is neither a tenant nor in possession of the property which is mentioned in the complaint and the petitioners were the real owners who derived title from the original owner one Mr.Radhakrishnan. The learned counsel submitted that the defacto-complainant and others have forged certain documents and a complaint has been lodged against them in Cr.No.93 of 2008. The learned counsel submitted that the defacto-complainant and others have forged certain documents and a complaint has been lodged against them in Cr.No.93 of 2008. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property and no such incident had taken place on 15.9.2010. The entire allegation is false. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that the complaint given by an advocate who is said to represent the defacto-complainant is also false and there is no such incident to register a case against the petitioners. 6. On the contrary, Mr.Sairam, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant in both the cases would submit that the allegations in the complaint would show prima-facie offence and the respondent is bound to take cognizance of such offence and therefore, the investigation need not be interfered at this stage. 7. The learned counsel submitted that in the first information report stage, this court need not look into the defence version or defence material to come to a conclusion. 8. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 9. Crl.O.P.No.28584 of 2010 relates to Cr.No.626 of 2010. The defacto-complainant is one Vinodh Kumar, who is said to be an advocate. 10. Crl.O.P.28585 of 2010 relates to Cr.No.553 of 2010, in which, one Bhargavi is the complainant. Cr.No.553 of 2010 is the earlier complaint against the petitioners. The specific allegations are that the defacto-complainant is residing at door No.39, III circular road, Jawahar Nagar, Chennai from 2003 and there are dispute between one Bhuvaneswaran and the petitioners and the petitioners along with 15 members trespassed into the house on 15.9.2010, ransacked the house and threw away her articles and they have also criminally intimidated her. 11. In Cr.No.626 of 2010, the specific allegation is that the defacto-complainant represents the above said Bhargavi and she contacted the defacto-complainant and narrated the incident and the defacto-complainant and others went to assist the said Bhargavi and at that time, the petitioners and others assaulted the advocate and criminally intimidated him. 12. It is well settled that a police officer is bound to take cognizance of the offence if allegations made in any complaint constitute an offence. 13. 12. It is well settled that a police officer is bound to take cognizance of the offence if allegations made in any complaint constitute an offence. 13. In the case of State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Apex Court has clearly laid down the guidelines, where the inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Court could be exercised. "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 14. At this stage the courts have to look into the allegations made in the complaint to see whether such allegations prima facie constitute any offence. If the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie constitute an offence the court can not interfere and the investigation is allowed to be continued for its logical conclution. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the proceedings pending on the file of Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallur Police Station, Chennai-82. 15. In the result, the criminal original petitions are dismissed and thefirst respondent is directed to conduct the fair investigation and file a final report expeditiously. Consequently, connected Mps are closed.