JUDGMENT R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioners had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.10007 of 2016 with the grievance that a complaint filed by them before the respondent herein was not being taken up for investigation and no crime was being registered. This Court by an order dated 29.03.2016 had directed the respondent herein and other police authorities to follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 and to take action accordingly. 2. The petitioners have filed the present contempt case stating that the directions of this Court dated 29.03.2016 are not being complied with. 3. The respondent has filed a counter stating that the respondent did not receive the complaint of the petitioners dated 19.02.2016 in the original. However, a Xerox copy was sent through registered post. On receipt of this complaint, an entry was made in the general dairy on 01.03.2016 and the petitioners were informed that the matter was a complaint of civil nature, by a letter dated 02.03.2016. The respondent submitted that in view of this action taken by the respondent, he has not violated the directions of this Court. 4. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh., requires registration of an F.I.R if the information set out in the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence. as the respondent has taken the stand that the F.I.R was not registered as no cognizable offence was made out in the complaint, it cannot be said that the respondent is violated the directions of this Court. 5. In the circumstances, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.