Judgment :- 1. Heard the petitioner-in-person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the third respondent to submit the report, stated to have been given by him to the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1084 of 2003, containing adverse allegations against the petitioner and to forbear the first and the second respondents from taking any action without conducting a proper enquiry into the matters relating to Crime No.2072 of 2001, on the file of the V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai. 3. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent has been initiating illegal criminal proceedings against the petitioner in collusion with one Ganapathy, who has been inimical towards the petitioner. In spite of a written complaint given by the petitioner the first respondent has been hesitating to take criminal action, as well as disciplinary action against the second and the third respondents. The petitioner has also stated that he is running a help centre doing social service, including blood donation, without collecting any funds. He has also been engaged in helping poor people in seeking legal aid. One such person is P. Valliammai, a poor and aged widow, residing at No.B/180-E-Type, Sidco Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai. She had purchased the property as a vacant land from its previous owner G. Saraswathi, who is the wife of R.M. Ganapathy. Since Saraswathi was not in a position to clear the dues to the Tamilnadu Housing Board, P. Valliammai had paid the instalments due to the Tamilnadu Housing Board, as sale consideration, on the request of Saraswathi. Since Saraswathi had offered to purchase the land, she was permitted to put up certain constructions at her own cost. 4. After the death of her husband, on 212. 1984, Valliammai had continued to reside in the said premises, along with her son Narayanan and two other children. She was paying the installments due to the Tamilnadu Housing Board, without any default. While so, G. Saraswathi and her husband R.M.Ganapathy, had fraudulently filed R.C.O.P.No.168 of 2000, on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, in collusion with Valliammais son Narayanan. Narayanan had deliberately remained exparte and one Valliammai had contested the petition. She was paying the installments due to the Tamilnadu Housing Board, without any default. While so, G. Saraswathi and her husband R.M.Ganapathy, had fraudulently filed R.C.O.P.No.168 of 2000, on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, in collusion with Valliammais son Narayanan. Narayanan had deliberately remained exparte and one Valliammai had contested the petition. Since the learned Judge of XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, was not exercising his jurisdiction in a proper manner he had made certain complaints to the Honble Chief Justice, High Court of Madras. A complaint had also been made to the Registrar of Small Causes Court, who had assured that necessary enquiry would be conducted. 5. In such circumstances, the second respondent had initiated an illegal criminal action against the petitioner and Valliammai on the instigation of R.M. Ganapathy. A criminal case had been registered in Crime No.2072 of 2001, invoking various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 506(ii) of the said Code. The Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on condition that he should surrender before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, on or before 212. 2001, and to furnish two solvent sureties of Rs.5,000/-each. However, the petitioner could not surrender since both the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, were on leave, on 212. 2001. However, the petitioner did not have the knowledge that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, would take up the cases of the X and the II Metropolitan Magistrates, due to their absence. Further, since the Inspector of Police, who was present at the Egmore Court, had orally informed the petitioner that the petitioners name could be deleted from the accused list, the petitioner had left the Egmore Court. .6. The petitioner had also submitted that Valliammai had given a complaint, dated 13. 2002, to the second respondent, stating that she would initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution against the second respondent. A civil suit in O.S.No.370 of 2002, along with an interim application, in I.A.No.938 of 2002, were also filed by Saraswathi making false and fraudulent allegations against the petitioner. The second respondent in active collusion and support from G. Saraswathi and R.M. Ganapathy had arrested the petitioner causing him great mental agony. The petitioner had been arrested by an order of the Court, on 4. 2002, and sent to the Central Prison, where he had remained upto 4. The second respondent in active collusion and support from G. Saraswathi and R.M. Ganapathy had arrested the petitioner causing him great mental agony. The petitioner had been arrested by an order of the Court, on 4. 2002, and sent to the Central Prison, where he had remained upto 4. 2002. The detention was illegal in nature. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for appropriate direction to the first respondent to take suitable legal action against the second respondent. 7. It has also been stated that the second respondent had falsely implicated the petitioner, in Crime No.2072 of 2001. In spite of the criminal case being a malicious prosecution, the third respondent has acted in a prejudicial manner against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail, in Crl.M.P.No.1084 of 2003, before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. However, the third respondent had sent a false report to the Principal Sessions Judge, stating that the petitioner had posed himself as an Advocate, in trying to help P. Valliammai, in the property dispute, which is the subject matter, in O.S.No.3113 of 1999, on the file of XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and in O.S.No.370 of 2002, on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. The third respondent had relied on the false version of the police in filing the report affecting the dignity, personal reputation and the status of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for the reliefs as stated therein. .8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that one R.M. Ganapathy had lodged a complaint, on 211. 2001, against P. Valliammai, Sivakumar, who is the petitioner in the present writ petition and Ramachandran. The complaint was that, on 211. 2001, the complainant had taken steps to evict the accused persons from his wifes property, as per the orders of the XIV Small Causes Court, with the help of the concerned authorities. Thereafter, the possession of the property had been handed over to R.M. Ganapathy and his wife Saraswathy, who were the owners of the said property. However, it was found that the accused person had re-entered the house, illegally, after having broken the lock of the house. Thereafter, the possession of the property had been handed over to R.M. Ganapathy and his wife Saraswathy, who were the owners of the said property. However, it was found that the accused person had re-entered the house, illegally, after having broken the lock of the house. Therefore, an enquiry had been conducted and a case had been registered against three persons for an offence, under Sections 341, 448, 427 and 506(2) IPC, in V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, in Crime No.2072 of 2001, in which the petitioner is arrayed as the second accused. 9. It has been further stated that the petitioner, Sivakumar, had filed an anticipatory bail application before the Principal Sessions Judge and had obtained an anticipatory bail, in Crl.M.P.No.15540 of 2001. The Court had granted him anticipatory bail on condition that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner was to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.5,000/-, with two sureties each for a likesum, to the satisfaction of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and that the petitioner should surrender before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, on or before 212. 2001, failing which the order would stand cancelled for non-compliance of the conditions. Since the petitioner had not complied with the conditions by not surrendering himself, within the time prescribed, the anticipatory bail stood cancelled. Thereafter, a charge sheet had been filed in the case, on 2. 2002, before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who had taken the case on file, on 13. 2002, in C.C.No.2722 of 2002 and had posted the matter, on 14. 2002. Summons had been served on A-1 Valliammai, A-3-Ramachandran and a warrant had been issued to A-2 Sivakumar, on 13. 2002. The petitioner had not appeared before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and a petition under Section 317 of Criminal Procedure Code, had been filed, on 11. 2002, by the petitioner. Even thereafter he did not appear, on 12. 2002, and therefore, a warrant for arrest had been issued against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner had filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the Principal Sessions Judge. 2002, by the petitioner. Even thereafter he did not appear, on 12. 2002, and therefore, a warrant for arrest had been issued against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner had filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the Principal Sessions Judge. While granting anticipatory bail, the following conditions had been imposed on the petitioner i) that in the event of his arrest the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.5,000/-, with two sureties for like sum, to the satisfaction of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai; ii) that the petitioner should surrender before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on or before 3. 2003, failing which the order would stand cancelled; iii) that the petitioner should appear before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, daily, at 11.00 a.m on all working days, for a period of one month; iv) that the petitioner should make himself available for interrogation by the respondent police, as and when required. .11. However, the petitioner did not surrender himself or appear before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the third respondent herein, on or before 3. 2003. The petitioner had filed a modification petition, in S.R.No.2883 of 2003, stating that he had filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.4385 of 2003, before the Principal Sessions Judge, to reconsider his request and to restore the petition in S.R.No.2883 of 2003, as the said petition had been dismissed, on 7. 2003. 12. It has been further stated that, the second respondent, as a Station Officer, after receiving the complaint of R.M.Ganapathy, had conducted a proper enquiry and thereafter, registered a case against the petitioner, on 211. 2001. The petitioner has been blaming the judicial officers and the police department only with the intention of escaping from the criminal liability, in respect of the offence committed by him. This fact had also been noted by the Principal Sessions Judge, in his order, in Crl.M.P.No.1084 of 2003, dated 22. 2003. Since the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions imposed on him, while the anticipatory bail had been granted, a charge sheet had been filed by the police, in C.C.No.2722 of 2002, before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and a non-bailable warrant had been issued against the petitioner. The said warrant had been executed and the petitioner was produced before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai, on 4. 2002, and he was remanded till 14. The said warrant had been executed and the petitioner was produced before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai, on 4. 2002, and he was remanded till 14. 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had not appeared for many hearings before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Therefore, on 112. 2002, a non-bailable warrant had been issued against the petitioner and it is pending execution. 13. It has been further stated that the second respondent had acted based only on the complaint given by R.M. Ganapathy, and it was only after conducting a proper investigation a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner, in Crime No.2072 of 2001. The second respondent had neither acted in a malafide manner, nor in contravention of the law. He has only done his duty as a police officer. The allegations made by the petitioner are devoid of merits and unsustainable. The petitioner has been making such wild allegations only with the wrongful intention of escaping from the clutches of law. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, with costs. .14. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent and in view of the submissions made by the petitioner (party-in-person) and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents herein and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner has been making wild allegations against the respondents, unsupported by sufficient evidence. Instead of facing the criminal proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner has chosen to come before this Court by filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the reliefs as stated therein. 15. The allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents have not been substantiated by sufficient evidence. The claims made by the petitioner are also ill-founded. The filing of the present writ petition by the petitioner is clearly an abuse of the process of law and therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The claims made by the petitioner are also ill-founded. The filing of the present writ petition by the petitioner is clearly an abuse of the process of law and therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by some specific action of the respondents, which is shown to be arbitrary or illegal, it is open to him to challenge the same, in the manner known to law. However, no such action of the respondents is under challenge in the present writ petition. Unless the petitioner is in a position to show that the criminal action initiated against the petitioner is malicious and malafide, the petitioner would not be entitled to the remedies available under law. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.