Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Prohibition, restraining respondent nos. 5 & 6 from harassing the petitioner, regarding civil dispute between the parties. 2. The petitioner is a partner of M/s.Current Trends, carrying on business of manufacturing of readymade garments and is exporting it to various countries throughout the world. The petitioner is in business since 1995. 3. The case of the petitioner is that till March 2010, there was no default on the part of petitioner to meet the liabilities of the suppliers, employees, contractors etc, but due to global recession and other restrictions imposed, the business of petitioner suffered heavily. The petitioner is also having current account with the State Bank of India with Over Draft facility for over Rs.27,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Crores). 4. The petitioner was called by the Central Crime Branch, as well as Anuppparpalayam Police Station. On the apprehension of arrest, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. On notice, it was stated by respondents that no case has been registered against the petitioner. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was disposed of by this Court. 5. The case of the petitioner is that respondent nos. 5 & 6, without registering any case, called the petitioner to come to the Police Station, without issuing any notice in writing for investigation. 6. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was disposed of by this Court. 5. The case of the petitioner is that respondent nos. 5 & 6, without registering any case, called the petitioner to come to the Police Station, without issuing any notice in writing for investigation. 6. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lays down procedure for investigation of criminal offences, which reads as under: "157 (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may by general order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery of the offender: Provided that- (a) When information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the office in-charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; (b) If it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is sufficient ground for entering off an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the information, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case of cause it to be investigated." 7. The Code of Criminal Procedure further provides procedures how witness is to be called, therefore, in absence of registration of case or by giving notice in writing, the Police has no jurisdiction to call a citizen to the Police Station. 8. The Code of Criminal Procedure further provides procedures how witness is to be called, therefore, in absence of registration of case or by giving notice in writing, the Police has no jurisdiction to call a citizen to the Police Station. 8. Though no counter has been filed by respondent nos.1 to 7, R.S.Jegannathan / 8th respondent got himself impleaded in this writ petition and has filed a counter, admitting therein that it was on his complaint, that the petitioner was called to Police Station. 9. The complaint, as translated, filed by the respondent no.8, reads as under: "Translation of the Complaint Copy Tirupur Date:18-11-2011 From R.S.Jeganathan, (Age 44) S/o.R.Subramaniam, Sri Udhayam Clothing, 24/3A, Amarjyothi Bhuvaneswari Nagar East, Periyandipalayam, Tiruppur To The Superintendent of Police, District Police Superintendent Office, Tiruppur Sir, I am a Partner in "Sri Udhayam Clothing" running in the above mentioned address. The Other Partners are S.Nachimuthu, J.Rajamani and N.Sumathi. We are Garment Exporters and also doing Jobwork to the Required firms / persons. Based on that, we had regularly done the jobwork for "M/s. Accoladee" running in Door No:15, Kaikaalankadu, Thyanneerpandal Colony, Anupparpalayam Post, Avinashi Road, Tiruppur District. S. Ravikumar and R.Saranya are the Partners of the above said "M/s.Accoladee". They used to pay us for the Jobwork done on partly basis. Meanwhile the "M/s.Accoladee" had stopped their Business Transaction with us from 02.03.2011 onwards. They also got back all their Raw Materials as well as the Finished Goods from us till that date. The Balance due they owe to us as on that date was calculated as Rs.26,25,980/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty only). After constant reminder and pressure from us to the Partners, Ravikumar and Saranya, they paid Rs.1,98,940/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only) on 16.07.2011. Then they were dragging and delaying the Payment with Ulterior Motive. Whenever the payment was asked, the above persons are just ignoring and delaying saying that they can make payment on their whims and fancies only. They extracted all of our work but not paying the Payment deliberately with the intention to cheat us. So I request you to kindly take the necessary actions against the Partners of the "M/s.Accoladee", Ravikumar & Saranya and thus render justice." 10. They extracted all of our work but not paying the Payment deliberately with the intention to cheat us. So I request you to kindly take the necessary actions against the Partners of the "M/s.Accoladee", Ravikumar & Saranya and thus render justice." 10. The case of respondent no.8 is that petitioner also issued a legal notice to respondent no.8, claiming amount from respondent no.8, though it is the petitioner, who owes money to respondent no.8. 11. It is also pleaded in the counter affidavit that petitioner got stay orders from this Court, by suppressing material facts and about the notice issued by the petitioner. 12. On consideration, this Court finds that even if the complaint filed by respondent no.8 is taken on its face value, no offence is disclosed, which is cognizable under Indian Penal Code, as it is purely a claim for recovery of money, and the remedy with the respondent no.8 is to file civil suit for recovery. 13. It is not understood how respondent nos. 5 & 6 can decide a dispute, which is purely of civil nature. 14. The action of respondent nos. 5 & 6, in calling the petitioner to Police Station and directing the petitioner to pay money advanced, is nothing but misuse of process of Court, which deserves to be depreciated in strong words. The liberty of a person is supreme and the Police has no jurisdiction to interfere with civil dispute. The Police can only register a case and proceed with investigation, if any criminal offence is disclosed in the complaint. 15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent nos. 5 & 6 are restrained from proceeding with the complaint, filed by respondent no.8, as it discloses no offence. The respondent nos.2 &3 are also directed to enquire into the conduct of respondent nos. 5 & 6, in entering into a civil dispute and inform this Court about the action taken within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order.