ORDER: Mr. K. Chandru, J. 1. The petitioner is the husband. The petitioner has filed HMOP before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur u/s 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said petition being HMOP NO.136 of 2009 is pending. 2. In that OP notice was ordered to the impleaded sixth respondent, who is none other than his wife and also the respondent in the OP. She has filed a counter statement dated 03.11.2009 in the OP resisting the claim for divorce. She has stated in the counter that she never left the petitioner's house voluntarily and it is the petitioner who went and left her in her parents house. Though it was promised that he will set up new house and take her back, he has not taken any steps to take her back and even avoided to attend the phone calls. 3. The sixth respondent also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that petition being HMOP NO.224 of 2009 is also pending before the same Court. 4. It is at this juncture, the petitioner sent a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, the first respondent, stating that even during the pendency of these two HMOPs, the respondents 2 to 5 are compelling him to stay with his wife and are indulging in Kattapanchayat. After sending the representation on 18.12.2010, immediately on 04.01.2011, he had filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 2 to 5. 5. On notice being ordered in this writ petition, the 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents have filed separate counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was claimed that the sixth respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner and it is treated as P.No.289 of 2010 and the petitioner was asked to attend the police station for enquiry into the complaint. It is only with a view to enquire in to the complaint, the petitioner was summoned. Further, with a view to avoid the enquiry into the complaint, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. It is only with a view to enquire in to the complaint, the petitioner was summoned. Further, with a view to avoid the enquiry into the complaint, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. The third respondent in her counter affidavit dated Nil has stated that the allegations that they are conducting Kattapanchayat was contrary to the truth and they never forced the petitioner to live together with his wife even though the matter is sub judice before the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. In fact, the sixth respondent made a serious complaint to the Station saying that the petitioner is holding her educational certificate and has not parted with the same. 8. The fifth respondent in the counter affidavit dated 25.02.2011 has stated that on being summoned to the police station, he gave a written undertaking on 29.09.2010 that he will appear on the next day and produce the certificate of his wife. Thereafter, for reasons best known, he gave a complaint that the certificate of his wife was lost in the Bazaar street. 9. This stand of the petitioner was highly surprising and the authorities are entitled to enter into the criminal complaint give by his wife, notwithstanding the matrimonial dispute pending before the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. 10. In the light of these definite stand taken by the contesting respondents, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Even the counsel appearing for the sixth respondent denies the allegation made by the petitioner, though no formal affidavit has been filed. This Court is not inclined to go into the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner in the HMOP and refrain from commenting upon the same as it will prejudice in the pending cases. 11. In any event, the allegations made by the petitioner are all denied by the contesting respondents. Therefore the question of issuing direction by this Court does not arise. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.