JUDGMENT :- M.Y. Eqbal, CJ & T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order made in W.P.No.19128 of 2011, dated 07.06.2011. 2. We have heard the appellant appearing in person. The appellant/writ petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction upon the first respondent, Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, to give Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the appellant/writ petitioner from the State consolidated fund to the torts and cruelties and further direct the CBI to investigate the crimes committed against the appellant/writ petitioner. 3. The appellant was an employee of the third respondent society and he claims to be the General Secretary of the Co-operative Industrial Workers Union and a member of the "Crime Against Labour Cell" of the Vellore District. 4. The case of the appellant is that he gave a Police complaint against the Secretary of the third respondent society and the Inspector of Police conducted preliminary enquiry and informed the appellant to come the next day. It is stated that though the appellant was present, the Secretary of the Society was not present and on the same day an F.I.R. was filed against the appellant, alleging that the appellant had beaten the Secretary. It appears that the appellant was also arrested and the appellant would state that the F.I.R was lodged against him based on fabricated statements. Therefore, on 22.12.2008, the appellant made a complaint cum representation to the first respondent to pay compensation and conduct enquiry by the CBI. This was followed by the representations dated 20.03.2009 and 04.05.2009. With the above averments, the appellant filed the instant writ petition with the aforementioned prayer. 5. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition inter alia contending that the third respondent gave a complaint on 18.12.2008, which was acknowledged as CSR No.659 of 2008, and the case was registered in Crime No.1262 of 2008 under Section 294(b) and 334 IPC in the Cheyyar Police Station and the complaint given by the appellant was acknowledged as CSR No.658 of 2008, and a case was registered in Crime No.1266 of 2008, under Section 294(b) and 323 IPC and on investigation, it was found to be given as mistake of fact and a final report to the said effect was filed before the Court in RCS No.05 of 2009 and the appellant was also served with the RCS notice. Further investigation revealed that the appellant has committed offences under Section 294(b) and 332 IPC and a charge sheet has been filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-II, Cheyyar in C.C.No.20 of 2009 and eight witnesses have been examined and the prosecution side has been closed. It is further stated that the Court has questioned the appellant/accused under Section 313 CrPC, on the basis of evidence given by the witnesses and the trial has come to the stage of pronouncing judgment and at that stage, in order to drag on the Court proceedings, the appellant has filed the writ petition with false and baseless averments. 6. The third respondent also filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. The appellant also filed reply affidavits to both the counter affidavits. 7. It is seen that the appellant raised an industrial dispute initially before the Labour Court, Vellore and he had made certain allegations against the Presiding Officer and ultimately, the proceedings were transferred to the Labour Court, Chennai and the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition and directed the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant not being satisfied with the award, filed a writ petition being W.P.No.47127 of 2006, which was dismissed, as against which, the appellant is stated to have preferred a writ appeal. 8. Today before us, the appellant appearing in person, admitted that he had received the compensation awarded by the Labour Court from the third respondent society. 9. Be that as it may, the prayer in the writ petition is for payment of compensation based upon an alleged tortious claim. Admittedly, the appellant has been arrayed as an accused in a criminal case and the trial is under progress. The complaint given by the appellant against the Special Officer of the third respondent society has been referred as mistake of fact and the RCS notice in this regard is stated to have been served on the appellant. 10. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to entertain the writ petition and held that the appellant has not made out any case for grant of any damages on the ground of public tort. The learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. [ (2008) 2 SCC 409 ], declined to direct the CBI to investigate into the matter. The learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. [ (2008) 2 SCC 409 ], declined to direct the CBI to investigate into the matter. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, if a person has a grievance that his F.I.R has not been registered by the Police, first remedy is to invoke Section 154(3) CrPC and if despite approaching the Superintendent of Police under the said provision, he still has a grievance that he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The person so aggrieved has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 CrPC should not be entertained. In the instant case, the complaint given by the appellant was received as CSR No.658 of 2008 and the case was registered in Crime No.1266 of 2008, the matter was investigated and on investigation, it was found that it is a case of mistake of fact and a final report to that effect has been filed to the Court in RCS No.5 of 2009 and the appellant has also been served with the RCS notice. In such circumstances, if the appellant is aggrieved, he has to work out his remedies as per the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Thus, after considering the entire facts, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled for any relief and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.