JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to Crime No.255 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.255 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police. 2. On the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, it has been stated that on 28.06.2019 at about 10.00 a.m, the petitioner attempted to damage the compound wall surrounding Saptha Kanniamman Koil @ Pappathiamman Thirukovil, Sellapillaikuttai Village, Muthunayakkanpatti. It is alleged that when the complainant questioned the petitioner, he threatened him that he would kill them. On the basis of the allegations, the FIR has been registered in Crime No.255 of 2019 under Sections 427 and 506 (1) of I.P.C.. The records would show that the dispute is primarily with regard to the rights of the Pooja at the subject temple. The allegations of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner is trying to grab the temple property by causing inconvenience to the public to worship the deity therein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a Civil Suit in O.S.No.105 of 2019 is pending between the petitioner and the defacto complainant before the learned District Munsif, Omalur. The petitioner has also filed an earlier suit in OS No.67 of 2000 against the defacto complainant, seeking declaration to declare that he is the hereditary trustee and he owns the rights to perform Pooja in the temple which is the subject matter of the suit and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the same. The said suit was allowed and the decree was passed, declaring that the plaintiff is a hereditary trustee and Poosari of the subject temple. 4. On perusal of the decree, it is seen that the decree is passed only in respect of the Subramaniasamy and Karuppannasamy Temple which is situated in S.No.129/2. However, the temple viz., Saptha kanniammal Koil which is mentioned in the complaint situates within the same campus in S.No.128/4 and the same is not covered in the said decree, dated 28.03.2019. Further, the said decree made in O.S.No.67 of 2000 was reversed on the appeal filed in A.S.No.26 of 2019. However, the temple viz., Saptha kanniammal Koil which is mentioned in the complaint situates within the same campus in S.No.128/4 and the same is not covered in the said decree, dated 28.03.2019. Further, the said decree made in O.S.No.67 of 2000 was reversed on the appeal filed in A.S.No.26 of 2019. Therefore, The Revenue Officials were directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law and it is for the Government Officials to fix the Management for conducting pooja activities regularly and on those days when festivals are planned. It was made clear that the petitioner who has got the decree only in respect of other temples in other Survey numbers, cannot take advantage of the said decree to enter into the temple Saptha Kanniamman Koil which situate in S.No.128/4. However, the complainant shall report the matter to the Revenue Officials or Village Administrative Officer to take appropriate action. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before registering the complaint for any non cognizable offence, the Police ought to have done a preliminary enquiry. But it is seen that no such preliminary enquiry has been made against the petitioner. The case has been registered under Sections 427 and 506 (1) of IPC. Both the offences are non cognizable in nature. In such case, the Police ought to have followed the directions of the Supreme Court given in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: “111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” 6. The investigation agency did not follow the fundamental procedures before registering the case. Considering the fact that the civil suit is pending and also the role assigned to the Revenue Authorities in questioning the alleged Act committed by the petitioner, I feel that if a preliminary enquiry was conducted that would have resolved the issue. 7. The investigation agency did not follow the fundamental procedures before registering the case. Considering the fact that the civil suit is pending and also the role assigned to the Revenue Authorities in questioning the alleged Act committed by the petitioner, I feel that if a preliminary enquiry was conducted that would have resolved the issue. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, I feel it is a proper and fit case for quashing the FIR by exercising the Power under Section 482 of C.R.Pc. Even if the case is allowed for trial, the failure on the part of the first respondent to follow the mandatory directions would only result in acquittal of the accused. 8. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.255 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.