JUDGMENT : 1. It may be necessary to state the bare facts that are required for deciding about the maintainability of this petition. 2. The petitioner appears to have filed a private complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District, which was returned by the Magistrate with a query as to the jurisdiction. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “1. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, I submit hereby this application for directions from your honourable court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code-1973 to secure the ends of justice as the honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate Court of Madurai opined it has no original jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed before that honourable court. Hence this application to your honourable court along with the 2nd representation written on the original application and a certified copy of which is attached for your esteemed perusal. 2. Therefore, it is prayed to issue suitable directions to ascertain the competent jurisdiction for resubmission of a private complaint filed u/s.200 at the competent court in accordance to your futuristic directions for being taken on the file of the Court for trial under the power of High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice mentioned at S.482 of the CRPC-1973.” 3. The Office has entertained doubts about the maintainability of the petition and hence, the matter was posted before me for deciding the issue of maintainability. 4. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person in detail, who reiterated that the petition is maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. On a reading of the complaint, filed by the petitioner, he has merely implicated certain Officers of the Department of Atomic Energy as accused and no individual person has been named as accused. Further, the petitioner has not even obtained necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot issue directions to Sub-Ordinate Courts to act in the manner as prayed for in the petition. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry is upheld and the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.