Judgment : 1. The petitioner has focused the present Writ of Mandamus in directing the respondents to register its complaint dated 18.05.2005 and to file a final report according to rules. 2. According to the petitioner Selvaraj and others services were terminated by the petitioner's company because they committed an act of defalcation of accounts. Further the said Selvaraj and others contacted the petitioner's Company Manager (Balaji) over phone on 14.05.2013 and threatened to murder him. 3. A perusal of the contents of affidavit filed by the petitioner in the writ petition indicates that the petitioner had given a detailed complaint dated 18.05.2005 to the second respondent/Inspector of Police, R1 Mambalam Police Station, Chennai-17 against Selvaraj and others. But it is the grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent/Inspector of Police, R1 Mambalam Police Station, Chennai-17 had not received his complaint. Added further, the contents of affidavit of the petitioner proceed to aver that Selvaraj and others on 16.05.2005 criminally trespassed into his company and pulled the shirt of the Manager of the Company viz., Balaji and threatened to eliminate him. 4. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the aim of lodging of First Information Report is to set the criminal law in motion for obtaining early information of purported criminal activity to record the circumstances before there is time for embellishment. Indeed, the First Information Report should be recorded at once and it is not pertaining to wait unless it is certain that an offence has been committed. 5. It cannot be gainsaid that where an First Information Report relates to a cognizable offence is lodged, the Station House Officer/Officer in charge of Police Station is bound to register the complaint without intervention of Court of law. Then, he is to conduct the investigation in the said matter. As a matter of fact he cannot refuse to register the same. To put it shortly, the non registration of First Information Report in a cognizable offence by a Police Officer is dereliction of statutory duty enjoined upon him, as opined by this Court. 6. At this stage, the Learned counsel informs this Court that the petitioner's Company has furnished a letter dated 07.07.2005 to the second respondent stating that no further action is required on the complaint sent by him through registered post. 6. At this stage, the Learned counsel informs this Court that the petitioner's Company has furnished a letter dated 07.07.2005 to the second respondent stating that no further action is required on the complaint sent by him through registered post. Based on the said letter, it appears that no further action has been taken by the second respondent and the matter has been closed (as informed to this Court by the Learned Additional Government Pleader). 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner himself has furnished a letter dated 07.07.2005 addressed to the second respondent requesting not to take further action in regard to the complaint lodged by him and also this Court taking note of the fact that the matter has been closed by the police authorities, opines that nothing survives in the present writ petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as an infructuous one. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.