ORDER : This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.12.2015 and further direct them to investigate the matter in accordance with law. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she has preferred a complaint to the respondent on 05.12.2015 against on Sahaya Arputharaj, Anantha Munirajan, Subramaniyam and others for preparing false documents by forging the petitioner's signature and illegally registering the marriage vide Certificate of Registration No.75 of 2013 dated 15.05.2013 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nagalnaickenpatty, Dindigul District, which act attracts the offences under Sections 120(B), 417, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 2.1. It is submitted by the petitioner that accused persons conspired together and forged the signature of the petitioner and the proposed accused Anantha Munirajan gave a false marriage solemnization certificate stating that he solenized the marriage between the petitioner with Sahaya Arputha Raj under Suyamariyathai Thirumanam under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereas both the petitioner and the proposed first accused belonged to Christianity to whom the said marriage will not apply. Having known all these facts, the then Sub-Registrar, Nagalnaicken Patty registered the marriage on the basis of the certificate given by Anantha Munirajan in collusion and connivance with the other accused. 2.2. It is also submitted that though the complaint given by the petitioner to the 1st respondent has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent, no enquiry has been conducted till now, as the proposed accused persons are very influential persons, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court with the prayer stated above. 3. On going through the averments made in the affidavit, this Court is of the view that the allegation with regard to fabrication of documents has to be investigated by the Police. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent Police to enquire into the veracity of the complaint of the petitioner in adherence to the principles and directions laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P and others reported in 2013(4) Crimes 243 (SC) and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Government of U.P and others reported in 2013(4) Crimes 243 (SC) and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the second respondent finding any prima facie case in the complaint of the petitioner, they shall register a case within a period of one week thereafter. However, it is made clear before taking a decision on the complaint, in one way or the other, the complainant should be heard. In case of closure of the complaint, the second respondent Police is directed to send a copy of the closure report to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of closure. On receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner either to make a private complaint or recourse to any other provisions of law. 4. Before parting with the case, this Court opines that in case the marriage had taken place, considering the fact the petitioner and proposed accused, with whom the marriage is said to solemnized, are Christians, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, especially Section 7(A) of the Act will not be applicable and it cannot be construed as a marriage at all. The validity of the marriage is in question at the level of registration and the facts do not call for any judgment on the conflict of personal laws, since the marriage is itself void ab inito. That being the case, I am impelled to recognize the fact of this marriage acquiring the legal colour and character of a relationship in nature of marriage. However, if the parties in this case desire that this relationship should bear the imprimatur of a valid marriage, their options for de novo registration under the relevant provisions of the Act, are always open. 5. In case such a marriage had not taken place at all as averred by the petitioner in this petition, it is to be pointed out here that knowing full well that the parties to the marriage registration form belong to Christianity, the then Sub-Registrar, who has failed in his cardinal duties, has registered the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, thereby converted the institution as a plaything. However, this Court do not want to express anything on the same. 6. However, this Court do not want to express anything on the same. 6. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the case has to be decided only on merits without being influenced by the opinion rendered in this order.