- (1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition to direct the respondents to take appropriate action on the complaint dated 14.6.2007 lodged by him.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the father of one T. Srikanth and the petitioner's family decided to conduct the marriage of their son with one Vandana, who is already known to the petitioner's son. IT is also submitted that due to persuasion made by the parents of the said Vandana, the petitioner's son T. Sirkanth was constrained to marry Vandana on 7.2.2007 at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter, there is not cohabitation, since the petitioner's son and Vandana have never lived together as husband and wife till this date. IT is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the petitioner's son's wish and desire to marry the said Ms. Vandana, only with the consent of the petitioner, namely, the father of T. Srikanth and other relatives, the marriage was fixed to be held on 18.6.2007 between T.Srikanth and the said Vandana. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the petitioner's family heard about certain cases pending against the family members of the said Vandana and as a result, there was some misunderstanding and dispute between the two families and while that being so, on 13.6.2007, at about 10.30 p.m. the said Vandana and her parents along with some rowdy elements have trespassed into the residence of the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. It is also submitted that due to such high handed and arrogant act of the said Vandana and her parents, the petitioner's family members constrained to leave their own house on 14.6.2007. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of this incident, the petitioner has given a complaint dated 14.6.2007 to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, and thereafter as per the direction of the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner lodged a similar complaint before the Inspector of Police, R8 All Women Police Station, Vadapalani, on 14.6.2007.
(3.) IT is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the complaint containing certain allegations constituting cognizable offence, the second respondent police, for the reasons best known to them, has not registered the FIR as per the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court to direct the second respondent police to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.6.2007.;