Judgment M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court one K.Rajamohammed has broughtforth this Petition for production of Mohamed Samsudeen who was employed under him during the relevant period. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents. Affidavit filed in support of the petition and also the status report filed by the respondents side are perused. 3. The gist of the case of the petitioner is that the detenu was working in the concern of the petitioner as a Collection Agent. On 11. 2009, he went for collection purpose in a two wheeler but he did not return. The petitioner came to know that he was taken by the fourth and fifth respondent and he was brought to Madras and he was in the premises of the third respondent/ Commissioner of Police, Madras, for the purpose of transporting him to Bihar. Under such circumstances, it became necessary to approach this Court for the purpose of producing him before this Court. 4. On the contrary, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that he was actually involved in four criminal cases. Out of these four cases, trial is pending in three cases and in one case, investigation is pending. 5. After going through the averments made and hearing the submissions on either side, it is quite clear that the alleged detenu was employed as a Collection Agent and he disappeared with the funds collected. Apart from that, even as per the averment, he was chased by the Bihar person in a van. Insofar as the assistance rendered by the 4th and 5th respondents are concerned, it is categorically denied by the status report. It is stated that the detenu was involved in four criminal cases, out of which, trial is pending in three cases and investigation is pending in one case and the third respondent has nothing to do with it. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the money collected by the alleged detenu was misappropriated and taken away by him. Under such circumstances, he has brought forth this petition. The Court is of the opinion that the averment do not make out a case to consider the request of the petitioner. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the money collected by the alleged detenu was misappropriated and taken away by him. Under such circumstances, he has brought forth this petition. The Court is of the opinion that the averment do not make out a case to consider the request of the petitioner. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. However, there cannot be any impediment for the respondent police to register a case as and when a complaint is made by the petitioner herein, if the facts and circumstances warrant so.