JUDGMENT : 1. S.M. Raja, the petitioner herein seeks a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Theni District, to register a case on the basis of his complaint dated 17.06.2016, investigate and file the final report. 2. The Raja presented his complaint on 17.06.2016 to the first respondent viz., Director General of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai. As there was no further action, Raja invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ganesan, who was formally associated with the running of a Temple called Muthumariamman Temple situate in Andipatti As he has greased the palms of R.D.O., VAO, Thasildar, Collector, Judges, thus, it requires thorough investigation, bring the offender to justice. This is the theme of this petition. That is also the theme of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that it is actually S.M. Raja vs. Ganesh, in their affairs with regard to the administration of the said Temple. S.M. Raja wants to settle a score and he has taken the Courts for his jolly ride and involved the vigilance and anticorruption police. So that, Ganesan and company may got threatened. No offences much less a cognizable offence has been disclosed in this petition. But, it discloses allegations on the strength of some voucher. Now, as Raja has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to fill the gap in delivering the justice, wherein a case, the Court wish to deliver justice, but it could not do so, because of some technical defects. In such circumstances, it has been given inherent power to do justice after all the Court exists to deliver justice, not to speak of justice. This is the theme behind under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In short, Section 482 Cr.P.C. wish to do justice and also wish to undo justice. Resultant shall be made to Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court. The key words are 'Court process'. The word 'process' amounting institution of a legal proceedings in any Court. The Court may be Magistrate Court or this Court or any Court. Resultant shall be made to Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court. The key words are 'Court process'. The word 'process' amounting institution of a legal proceedings in any Court. The Court may be Magistrate Court or this Court or any Court. Thus, when resort having been made to abuse the said process of the Court viz., by filing a petition under Section 482 or for registering an F.I.R. then it is misuse of process of the Court. The request for a direction to register an F.I.R. and to investigate, the essential requirement is the complaint and also the petitioner must disclose a cognizable offence as enjoined in the enabling statute either in the I.P.C. or under the P.C. Act, 1988. When it discloses, then the Court will direct the police to have undertake investigation. Now, as we have already stated that the proposed accused Ganesan and company are private persons. Further, acting upon a chit or voucher alleged to have been made by the Ganesan and others that they have bribed public officials including judge. It would not warrant a case to exercise our power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. A fervent appeal has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner atleast the police people asked to do investigation. The word 'investigation' is too simple word, but it will still in disaster consequences. An investigation will arise, only upon registration of F.I.R. and if no F.I.R., no investigation. Once it is registered without any basis, then arrest, anticipatory bail, regular bail. These are all consequences. Therefore, a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is a direction/investigation, when no strong or valuable case is made for directing investigation, it is nothing and the liberty of the person will be at stake. 6. For each and every case, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be used. Principle is speaking the inherent power must be used sparingly, because it is in the nature of extraordinary power of the Court. Where the power is to be used, it must be used. Where it is not required to be used, it should not be used. If it is made to be used, this is a case of misuse or abuse. This is also a dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander ( 2012 (9) SCC 460 ). Where it is not required to be used, it should not be used. If it is made to be used, this is a case of misuse or abuse. This is also a dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander ( 2012 (9) SCC 460 ). Now, applying the above principles to the facts of this case and the allegations made by S.M. Raja as against his rival Ganesan and persons, certainly does not disclose a cognizable offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. It is a tool used by Raja to abuse the process of Court to threaten Ganesan and others. It is a criminal intimidation through Court. It is, in short, Raja wants to threaten Ganesan and others. For this purpose, he tries to use the Court as a weapon as well as the vigilance and anticorruption, Theni District. Since no valid ground has been made to issue a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we are not inclined to issue a direction. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.