Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent 1 to 3. .2. The petitioner has stated that his son P.Venkatesan had been selected as an Armed Reserve police constable in the Tamilnadu Police Service. He had completed commando training and thereafter, he was posted in the office of the D.I.G. of Police, Chennai. Later, he was transferred to the Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Vellore. Thereafter, he was appointed as a personal security guard to Akbar Gouser, a private Unani practitioner at Vaniyambadi in the month of August, 1998. At that time when he was posted as a security guard to Akbar Gouser, he was 25 years old. When he was on duty as a personal security guard to Akbar Gouser, he had, expressed his dissatisfaction about his activities. The petitioner has further stated that Akbar Gouser was giving treatment to persons who had come to him with various diseases and many of his patients had suffered serious consequences due to his unethical and unqualified medical practices. Some of the patients had died due to the callous ways of treatment meted out to them by Akbar Gouser. Akbar Gouser, who was a quack doctor had also amased huge amounts of wealth by various illegal means, using his gang of henchmen. 3. It has been further stated that, on 212. 98, a constable from the Office of Superintendent of Police, Vellore, had come in a police jeep to the residence of the petitioner, saying that his son P. Venkatesan had been admitted in the Vellore Hospital and he had wanted to see his parents. The petitioner was taken to the Hospital of Akbar Gouser at Vaniyambadi, where he had found his son dead, with bullet injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the Vaniyambadi Police station by force and was kept there for three hours. Despite his fervent requests to the police authorities, the petitioner was forbidden from meeting Akbar Gouser to know the cause and the reason for his sons death. The petitioner was informed that his son had committed suicide by shooting himself with his fire arm. The police authorities had failed to inform the petitioner about the exact cause of his sons death. The petitioners signatures were obtained on several sheets of papers by the police officials. The petitioner was informed that his son had committed suicide by shooting himself with his fire arm. The police authorities had failed to inform the petitioner about the exact cause of his sons death. The petitioners signatures were obtained on several sheets of papers by the police officials. The petitioner had given a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Revenue Divisional Officer, stating that Akbar Gouser would have killed his son. Therefore, the petitioner had requested them to investigate the matter to find out the actual cause of the death of his son P. Venkatesan. However, the complaints made by the petitioner fell on deaf ears, as they were indifferent and insensitive to the feelings of the petitioner, who had lost his son. 4. The suicide theory mooted by the police authorities are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Even according to the post mortem report there were about four bullet wounds on the head, face and neck of P. Venkatesan. The said wounds could not have been self inflicted. Akbar Gouser who was a very influential person had used his money and muscle power to thwart proper investigation into the actual cause of the death of the petitioners son. In such circumstances, the petitioner had moved this Court by way of a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .5. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. The claim of the petitioner that his son P. Venkatesan was not happy and was not satisfied with Akbar Gousers behaviour and attitude is false. It is also false to state that Akbar Gouser had a dubious and notorious reputation for treating patients in unethical ways. In fact, P. Venkatesan was cheerful and happy during his tenure as a personal security officer of Akbar Gouser. However, it was found that P. Venkatesan was having an affair with a girl by name Ramani and he had also stayed with her in a lodge by name `Gee Kay Residency at No.69, SIPCOT, Ranipet, Vellore District, on 12. 98 and 98. 6. It has also been stated that a case had been registered in Vellore Town Police Station in Crime No.802 of 1998, under Section 174 Cr.P.C and the investigation had been taken up by the then Inspector of Police, namely, Pandurangan. 98 and 98. 6. It has also been stated that a case had been registered in Vellore Town Police Station in Crime No.802 of 1998, under Section 174 Cr.P.C and the investigation had been taken up by the then Inspector of Police, namely, Pandurangan. In the course of the investigation, the Scientific Assistant and the Finger Print Expert had visited the place where P. Venkatesan had died and the police detective dog had been taken to the place where he was found dead. The weapon used by the deceased for committing suicide and the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of his death and the fired bullets, along with the letter suspected to have been written by P. Venkatesan, were seized under a cover of mahazar. During the course of chemical analysis and the examination of the weapon and the bullets used, by the ballistic experts, it was revealed that P. Venkatesan had committed suicide by shooting himself to death due to love failure with a girl by name Ramani and the consequential mental depression. The scientific experts had examined the posture of the body at the scene of occurrence and the site and the nature of injuries sustained by P. Venkatesan and they had come to the conclusion that the deceased would have been in a sitting position while firing the weapon by placing the weapon between his thigh regions. The examination of witnesses and the opinion of the experts had revealed that P. Venkatesan had committed suicide by firing with his gun, due to his love failure. The scientific assistant who had visited the scene of occurrence had also given his opinion leading to the inevitable conclusion that the police constable P. Venkatesan had died by committing suicide. .7. The learned counsel Ms. D. Geetha, who had appeared on behalf of the respondents had produced before this Court the relevant records pertaining to the case. On a perusal of the said records, it is found that necessary investigation had been done by the concerned officials and there is no indication of any malpractice or irregularity involved in the said investigation. Further, the respondents had come to the conclusion that the petitioners son P. Venkatesan had committed suicide by shooting himself with his weapon due to his love failure with a girl by name Ramani. Further, the respondents had come to the conclusion that the petitioners son P. Venkatesan had committed suicide by shooting himself with his weapon due to his love failure with a girl by name Ramani. There is nothing shown or produced on behalf of the petitioner for this Court to come to the conclusion that the investigation made by the respondents and the other officials, in connection with the death of the petitioners son P. Venkatesan, is totally inadequate or incorrect. 8. Mere allegations made by the petitioner against Akbar Gouser, or any other person, including the police officials, cannot be a ground for this Court to order fresh investigation of the matter, as prayed for by the petitioner. Nor would it be sufficient for this Court to issue a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to award an interim compensation of rupees twenty lakhs, as prayed for by petitioner in the present writ petition. Further, it was open to the petitioner to have taken up the issue before the proper forum, in accordance with law, immediately, after the incident had occurred, on 212. 1998. Unless the petitioner is in a position to sufficiently show that there has been some foul play in the death of his son P. Venkatesan, this Court cannot be persuaded, either to order fresh investigation in the matter or to award compensation for the death of the petitioners son P. Venkatesan, as prayed for in the writ petition. Since the petitioner has failed to do so the prayer in the present writ petition cannot be countenanced. Even though the death of the petitioners son could be seen as an unfortunate incident, a direction as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be issued, merely based on the Courts compassion or its subjective sympathy. In such view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.