ORDER : 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent/Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Sivagangai to register his complaint, dated 5.1.2016, on the file of the Second Respondent to register his complaint, dated 5.1.2016, on the file of the Second Respondent and to investigate the same in accordance with Law. 2. According to the Petitioner, his parents namely, one Chandrasekar and Angammal were the bread-winners of the family selling Fruits, Flowers, Coconuts, sacred herbs like Tulasi etc in-front of the Temple, namely Sree Renganathar Perumal Kovil and Kothanda Ramar Thirukkoil and they projected W.P(MD)No.14704 of 2015 and W.P(MD)No.14508 of 2015, seeking permission to sell Flowers etc in-front of the said Temple and this Court, on 13.08.2015, had passed an order directing the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Sivagangai to consider the representation sent to the concerned Respondents within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 3. The stand of the Petitioner is that on 24.09.2015, at 11.30 a.m., Mariyappan, Inspector of Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department came to the Petitioner's place as per the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and informed the Petitioner's parents that he is coming from the Joint Commissioner's Office to inspect the spot eligible for erection of shop for selling the pooja articles or not etc and that the said place is very much suitable for erection of shops for pooja articles and he would report the same to the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department. 4. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said Mariappan, Inspector of Police, HR & CE Department, Thiruvadanai informed the Petitioner for implied illegal gratification as he came to inspect for the sake of the welfare of the Petitioner's Parents and that the Petitioner understood that said Mariappan is asking for money and that he give Rs.1,000/- to the said Mariyappan (Inspector). 5. 5. That apart, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after receiving the money from the Petitioner, the said Inspector Mariyappan informed that they would receive the order from the concerned Department from Chennai as soon as possible within a month's time to erect the shops for selling Pooja Articles in the place in question and he also informed the Petitioner's parents that they would have to pay some more money to other officials of the Government soon, as they received the order for erection of shops and obtained signatures from the Petitioner's parents in two blank white sheets. 6. Furthermore, it is the plea of the Petitioner that the Inspector Mariyappan after moving from the place of the Petitioner met the Trustees of the Temple namely, One Shanmugam Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar in-front of his house and indulged in conversation with them for quite a long time and received few notes of 1000 rupees from Somasundaram Chettiar also and further that the Petitioner along with one Senthil had seen the whole episode as it took place near to him. After receipt of the amount, the Inspector and Trustees, according to the Petitioner, moved to a Hotel named 'Vasantha Fresh' and took their lunch and when the Inspector Mariyappan moved away from the said Trustees, the Petitioner met him and asked him about the same, for which, the Inspector replied to him to mind his own business and left the place in a hurried manner. 7. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner's parents sent a complaint as regards the aforesaid incident to the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Chennai and also to the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Sivagangai District and that on 31.10.2015, at 7.30 p.m. the Inspector Mariyappan came to the Petitioner's house and asked for signatures in blank white sheets or else, his parents may not be able to sell the pooja articles. In fact, it is the stand of the Petitioner that his parents refused to put the signatures and asked for acknowledgement and thereafter, the Inspector Mariyappan threatened the Petitioner and his parents that he is the superior, who has the power to report to the higher authorities about the erection of shops etc. 8. In fact, it is the stand of the Petitioner that his parents refused to put the signatures and asked for acknowledgement and thereafter, the Inspector Mariyappan threatened the Petitioner and his parents that he is the superior, who has the power to report to the higher authorities about the erection of shops etc. 8. The real grievance of the Petitioner is that on 02.11.2015, he gave a complaint to the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Chennai and also to the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Sivagangai District, but no action has been taken by the concerned authorities. He sent a complaint to the respondents 1 and 2 on 5.1.2016. Also that, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's complaint discloses the cognizable offence and that the act of the Second Respondent in not registering the complaint is an illegal one besides dereliction of duty on the part of the respondents. 9. In short, the stand of the Petitioner is that the accused persons are to be punished in terms of the ingredients of Section 120(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 10. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the Respondents submits that based on the Petition, dated 5.1.2016 of the Petitioner, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai-28 in No.PE.22/2016/HR&CE/SG, dated 19.01.2016 had instructed Thiru.A.Peter, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Sivagangai Wing to register and conduct a preliminary enquiry against Mariyappan, Inspector, HR & CE, Thiruvadanai and submit a 'Preliminary Enquiry Report' within 15 days. 11. At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out that the term 'gratification' is used under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient. 12. As a matter of fact, the term 'gratification' in a restricted sense connotes allowing decisions and actions of a person to be influenced not by right or wrongs of a cause, but by his, the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish consideration. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that ''Greed' is a common weakness of Homo-sapiens. Also that, 'Corruption' is the deadliest enemy of every free civilized society, in the considered opinion of this Court. 13. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that ''Greed' is a common weakness of Homo-sapiens. Also that, 'Corruption' is the deadliest enemy of every free civilized society, in the considered opinion of this Court. 13. In view of the fact that a preliminary enquiry was ordered to be conducted by means of a Memorandum of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, R.A. Puram, Chennai, dated 19.1.2016, in and by which, ThiruA.Peter, Inspector of Police, Vlgilance and Anti-Corruption, Sivagangai was instructed to conduct a preliminary enquiry against Mariyappan, Inspector, HR & CE, Thiruvadanai and to submit a 'Preliminary Enquiry Report' within 15 days, this Court recording the same, disposes the Criminal Revision Petition for the present.