JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, she had handed over a document executed by one Madurambal, proprietorix of Sri Lakshmi Study Centre, Chennai, wherein, it had been stated that she owes a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with interest, to the petitioner. One Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai, had received the original document during the course of his investigation, pursuant to the directions issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 3.5.2000. In spite of several representations, the said document had not been returned to the petitioner by Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai. Since, the original document had not been returned to the petitioner, she has not been in a position to file a civil suit, before the appropriate civil Court, to claim the amount from Madurambal, proprietorix of Sri Lakshmi Study Centre, Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent had submitted that Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai, had not been impleaded as a party to the present writ petition, even though he is a necessary party, since, certain allegations had been made against him. Even if the document in question had been handed over to Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai, there is nothing to show, by way of evidence, that it had not been returned to the petitioner. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 5. Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai, who is alleged to have taken the original document, had not been impleaded as a party in the present writ petition. Further, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate her claims that the document in question had not been returned to her by Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai. Further, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate her claims that the document in question had not been returned to her by Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai. Since, such factual aspects cannot be gone into by this Court in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.