Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to give protection to safeguard the petitioners life and personal liberty and consequently, direct the 3rd and 4th respondents not to harass the petitioner in any manner and further to consider the petitioners representation dated 09.12.2011. 2. The writ petition was filed on 19.12.2011, which means the petitioner immediately after making representation dated 09.12.2011, has rushed to this Court, without waiting for the action, if any, taken by respondent nos. 1 & 2 on the representation. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, averments made by the petitioner read as under: "I, S.Ragini, D/o.Sigamani, Hindu, aged about 43 years, residing at N.No.260, O.No.3/211, Annanagar 1st Street, Maaligaipattu Post & Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, temporarily come down to Chennai and do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: (1) I am the petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) I submit that I am filing the above writ petition to issue directions to the respondents on the basis of my representation dated 09.12.2011 to safeguard my life and liberty. (3) I submit that I came from a down trodden village belonging to schedule caste. I completed my tamil typing course and I have joined in a private institution and worked as a typist. I got married to one Thiru Durai Singavel and to my misfortunate my husband Durai Singavel was falsely implicated in a case in Spl.C.C.No.5/2003 and the above case is pending before the Honble POTA Court at Poonamalee. (4) I submit that since the case has been pending and my husband is facing the trial, every time before the date of hearing I was enquired by the 4th respondent police and due to this unlawful action of the 4th respondent my reputation amongst the public is spoiled out. Further to my dismay, it is unfortunate on the part of the 4th respondent police to harass me as if I am also one of the accused in the so called crime. In view of the malafide victimisation and giving of false report on the part of the 4th respondent police I was thrown out from the job wherever and whenever. In view of the malafide victimisation and giving of false report on the part of the 4th respondent police I was thrown out from the job wherever and whenever. (5) I submit that since some of the accused were not produced before the said Honble POTA Court, I was threatened by the 4th respondent police to be falsely implicated in above case. Further I submit that I am under suspension that I will be also put as accused in the above case. (6) I submit that as a lady, I was facing more harassment by the 4th respondent police each and every day and my day today life and personal liberty were curtailed by the 4th respondent police without any authority of law. Further I submit that in view of the continuous adamant by the 4th respondent police I am unable to continue my job and I am facing more economic loss and hardship to survive in the day today affairs to maintain my family. For the said reasons I used to go to my native place and often I stayed there continuously. (7) I submit that it is pertinent to note that the Honble Apex Courts and Honble High Courts in various decisions were giving directions to the concerned Police officials while they violating the fundamental rights of the persons. But the 4th respondent police has neither scared about the Honble Courts decisions nor his guiltiness while functioning as a Mandatory Authority to safe guard the life and personal liberty of the persons concerned. (8) I submit that it is primafacie noted that the 4th respondent police officials are affecting my fundamental rights, life and personal liberty. It is violative under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further I submit that in view of the above violation it is just and necessary to give suitable directions to the respondents in order to safeguard my life and personal liberty. Further I submit that due to the harassment made by the 4th respondent police I am facing mental torture and my health conditions becomes very worst to live in this world. (9) I submit that it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to safeguard the life and personal liberty of the persons under the powers enriched by the Constitutional Authorities. (9) I submit that it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to safeguard the life and personal liberty of the persons under the powers enriched by the Constitutional Authorities. Further I also submit that the Honble Courts has been implemented more suitable orders effectively in order to safeguard the fundamental rights life and personal liberty of affected persons from the clutches of respondent police while they enforcing their mandatory duties. (10) I submit that in this circumstances I have no other alternative, speedy and efficacious remedy except to approach this Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further I submit that no similar petition is pending or filed before any other forum for the same relief." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner has right to live peacefully and protect privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that her fundamental right is being violated by respondent nos.3 and 4, therefore, she is entitled to a direction to respondent nos.1 & 2 to provide necessary protection to the petitioner to make her lead a dignified life. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 160 Cr.P.C., which stipulates that for the purpose of enquiry, if a person is to be called, he is to be called in writing. It is contended that the respondent nos.3 & 4 are violating Section 160 Cr.P.C. by calling the petitioner to Police Station for enquiry. 6. It is also contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for enquiry, the Police should come to her house and not call her to the Police Station. 7. On consideration, I find that the writ petition is totally misconceived. In order to issue directions under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the pre-requisite is that a case should be made out showing violation of fundamental rights. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows only general and vague allegations, without specifying date and time of the incident nor the persons, guilty of violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner have been named. The allegations in the petition are of illegalities, which cannot be committed by legal person, but human being, therefore in absence of guilty being made party, the allegations cannot be looked into. 8. The allegations in the petition are of illegalities, which cannot be committed by legal person, but human being, therefore in absence of guilty being made party, the allegations cannot be looked into. 8. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot hold fishing enquiry into the allegations, which are not only vague, but too general to be taken note of. No Police Officer has been named against whom the enquiry could be ordered to find out the truth of allegations. 9. For the reasons stated, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. 10. However, this order shall not bar the petitioner to take ordinary remedies available to her, by approaching the Civil Court or the Court of Judicial Magistrate for redressal of her grievance, if any illegality is committed by any Police Official or the private person.