Judgment : This order shall govern these six writ petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioners, seeking writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from interfering with the civil rights of the petitioners. 3. The affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are perused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. 4. The common grievance ventilated by the petitioner in these cases are: The petitioner in WP.No.3345 of 2005 has filed O.S.No.546 of 2002, the petitioner in W.P.No.3346 of 2005 has filed O.S.No.97 of 2004, the petitioner in W.P.No.3347 of 2005 has filed O.S.No.804 of 2003, the petitioner in W.P.No.3348 of 2005 has filed O.S.No.802 of 2003, and the petitioner in W.P.No.3349 of 2005 has filed a suit in O.S.No.548 of 2002. These petitioners have filed those suits independently for permanent injunction in respect of the immovable properties to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, where the respondents 7,8 and 9 were the parties. Equally, the defendants therein filed suits against the petitioners herein. All the suits filed by the petitioners were decreed, while the suits filed by the defendants were dismissed. Either of the parties did not prefer an appeal. While the matter stood thus, these petitioners were called for by the respondents 2,3 and 4 on the alleged complaint given by the respondents 7 to 9 on different dates. On the guise of the complaint, they were called for and the respondents police made them wait for whole days and thus, they were forced to execute the sale deed in respect of the immovable properties as stated in the suits, in which the respondents 7 to 8 failed. Under these circumstances, it has become necessary to file these writ petitions before this court for the issue of a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from interfering with the civil rights. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 9 would represent that on their complaint, the respondents 2 and 4 have registered the cases and they are pending investigation against these petitioners; that pending investigation, they have approached this court and got an order of interim injunction and thus, the investigation was stalled. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 9 would represent that on their complaint, the respondents 2 and 4 have registered the cases and they are pending investigation against these petitioners; that pending investigation, they have approached this court and got an order of interim injunction and thus, the investigation was stalled. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 would submit that against these petitioners in these writ petitions, a case came to be registered by Karungalpalayam Police Station in Crime No.552 of 2004 under Section 420 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act and the other case has been registered by Erode Taluk Police Station in Crime No.456 of 2004 under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act; that after registration of the case, the investigation was on; that at that juncture, the petitioners have approached this court in Crl.O.P.Nos.36065 of 2004 and 40065 of 2004 and obtained anticipatory bail. After doing so, they have filed these writ petitions and obtained an order of interim injunction against the police department from further proceeding with the investigation and hence, the investigation could not be proceeded with and under these circumstances, there is no question of interference with the civil rights of the petitioners, but the petitioners have approached this court with all false allegations to stop further investigation and hence, these writ petitions have got to be dismissed. 7. The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. The grievance ventilated by the petitioners in all the writ petitions are common, namely their civil rights are being interfered with and infringed by the respondents 2 to 4, who are the Inspectors of Police at Karungalpalayam Police Station, North Police Station, Erode and Taluk Police Station, Erode. According to the petitioners, they have filed civil suits against the respondents 7 to 9 in respect of the immovable properties, complaining that peaceful possession and enjoyment was interfered with. Equally, the respondents 7 to 9 have filed suits. According to the petitioners, their suits were decreed, while the suits filed by the respondents 7 to 9 were dismissed, on contest. Equally, the respondents 7 to 9 have filed suits. According to the petitioners, their suits were decreed, while the suits filed by the respondents 7 to 9 were dismissed, on contest. Now, according to the petitioners, while they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties, after decrees were passed, they were called for by the respondents 2 to 4 and they were forced to execute the sale deed in respect of the very same property, which were the subject matters in that suits and hence, it is a fit case where the writ has got to be issued. 9. On the contrary, the case of the respondents was that both the police stations, namely Karungalpalayam Police station and Erode Taluk Police Station have registered cases in Crime Nos.552 of 2004 and 456 of 2004 respectively under the provisions, as referred to above. It is also not in controversy that these petitioners have approached this court for getting anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.Nos.36065 of 2004 and 40065 of 2004. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners filed these writ petitions before this court and obtained an interim injunction restraining the police officials from further investigating into the matter. 10. The court is of the considered opinion that, it is not a fit case where the writ could be issued. Once it is brought to the notice of the court that two criminal cases have been registered by the respondents 2 and 4 under the above stated provisions of law, the investigation has got to be done to unearth the truth and there is no question of granting interim injunction. If the contention put forth by the petitioners side is accepted and the writ is issued, it is nothing but an interference made in the investigation to be done by the police officials, which is uncalled for and unwarranted. The court is of the considered opinion that it should not be done. If the injunction like this is granted, the police department could not carry on with the investigation in the criminal cases. Thus, the investigation has got to be proceeded with. At the same time, it should be ensured that proper investigation is done. 11. The court is of the considered opinion that it should not be done. If the injunction like this is granted, the police department could not carry on with the investigation in the criminal cases. Thus, the investigation has got to be proceeded with. At the same time, it should be ensured that proper investigation is done. 11. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Erode is directed to monitor the investigation process in the above said two crime numbers, which are now pending on the file of the respective police station and see that nothing wrong would happen and the parties are not prejudiced and the same be brought before the concerned court by way of filing of the report as one required and the investigation should be completed as expeditiously as possible. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.