Judgment :- The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent viz., Chief Kazi of the Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 09.06.2006 and certified by him on 27.07.2006 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation of Rs.7,00000/- jointly and severally by way of damages to the petitioners herein. 2. When the writ petition came up on 29.01.2007, this court admitted the writ petition. In the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to register the complaint dated 31.07.2006. This Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition and directed the main writ petition itself to be posted for final hearing in the first week of November 2007. 3. It is the case of the first petitioner that she is the wife of one T.C.A. Mohamed Yusuff, the third respondent herein. The second and third petitioners are her daughters and the fourth petitioner is his son. Her husband was a beef merchant. She got married with the third respondent on 20.08.1987 as per Islamic customary rites and practice and the marriage was duly recorded in the Nikkah Register of Padi Jumma Masjid. She was carrying on her matrimonial life over 20 years and she gave birth to petitioners 2 to 4. She was given 28 sovereigns of gold and other household items at the time of marriage. During the initial stage of married life, she was residing with the third respondent at his native place and subsequently, she shifted her matrimonial residence at Mannurpet. The third respondent did not have any regular income and took to drinking. Therefore, they shifted their residence to the address at Mannurpet in Chennai so as to have the financial support of her parents. The third respondent commences his business at Padi. Her father gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to her husband for starting an individual business at Mannurpet. However, he could not run the business successfully. She also started helping her husband. While so, the third respondent expressed his desire to go to his native place at Velambur in Cheyyar Taluk to meet his parents. Though he promised to come back soon, he did not come back. Subsequently, she came to know in July 2006 that the third respondent had got married to another woman at his native place and living with her separately. Though he promised to come back soon, he did not come back. Subsequently, she came to know in July 2006 that the third respondent had got married to another woman at his native place and living with her separately. Because of the action of the third respondent, the petitioners were left to fed for themselves. 4. When she made enquiries with the local people, She came to know that the third respondent had obtained an authoritative verdict/Fatwa from the second respondent dissolving her marriage with the third respondent by way of showing a Kulanama (divorce proposal given by wife to husband as per Islamic Law) dated 09.06.2006 alleged to have been written by the first petitioner. It is only on the basis of the same, the local jamath people permitted the third respondent to marry another muslim woman on the wrong belief that she had opted to get divorce from the third respondent. But she has not given any letter of kulanama to the third respondent. The letter dated 09.06.2006 alleged to have been signed by her is nothing but an act of fraud and forgery. None of the petitioners herein had given the said letter and even the address of the petitioners is not mentioned in the letter dated 09.06.2006. Despite these transgression evident on the face of the record, the second respondent had given authoritative verdict/Fatwa on the same day on 09.06.2006 holding that marriage was dissolved by way of 'Khula' and the third respondent ceased to be husband of the first petitioner and that he could marry another muslim lady as per Islamic Shariah. The petitioner has sent a representation to the second respondent on 27.07.2006 asking to intervene on the same. The second respondent informed that he gave his opinion based on the letter of the third respondent enclosing the copy of the Khula given by her. The action of the second respondent was highly objectionable. 5. The 'Kulanama' said to have been given by her does not contain the address of the petitioner. The address of the third respondent was also not found. Father's name of the husband and the identity of the wife is also absent. The address of the two witnesses and their father's names were also not mentioned. The actual date of Khula was not mentioned in the said letter. The address of the third respondent was also not found. Father's name of the husband and the identity of the wife is also absent. The address of the two witnesses and their father's names were also not mentioned. The actual date of Khula was not mentioned in the said letter. If the Khula is said to be on 09.06.2006, without conducting any enquiry, no endorsement could have been made. The letter also do not mention about the maintenance of children and their future provisions. It does not speak about payment of Mahar amount which is an essential ingredient of a Muslim divorce. No iddath period was specified. 'Khula' should have been given by the wife but in this case second respondent has taken it from the husband. The letter of Khula was found in English, language which the first petitioner and the third respondent is not familiar. 6. Hence, the first petitioner gave a criminal complaint to the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambattur seeking for appropriate action on the complaint. She also made complaint to National Human Rights Commission and other bodies. Under the said circumstances, she has come forward with the present writ petition seeking to set aside the endorsement made in the 'Khulanama' by the second respondent and for compensation. 7. When the matter came up on 24.08.2011, this Court recorded the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the 6th respondent will investigate the complaint given by the Padi Muslims Association on 31.07.2006 which was forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambattur, the 5th respondent. The 6th respondent was also directed to investigate the said complaint and file a report before this Court on or before 23.09.2011. The first petitioner being the complainant and the third respondent being accused were directed to co-operate for completing the investigation and for filing a report. 8. In the mean while, a counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent on 17.08.2009 and a counter affidavit was filed by the 6th respondent dated 22.02.2007. On 09.03.2012, this Court directed the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambattur to appear before this Court on 16.03.2012 to inform about the further steps taken pursuant to the report submitted by her since the last entry in the report was on 24.09.2011 and more than 6 months have lapsed. On 09.03.2012, this Court directed the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambattur to appear before this Court on 16.03.2012 to inform about the further steps taken pursuant to the report submitted by her since the last entry in the report was on 24.09.2011 and more than 6 months have lapsed. Accordingly, the 6th respondent appeared before this Court and informed about the further steps taken. 9. It is stated that the Khula and the endorsement was sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department and the Deputy Director of Documents Division by communication dated 19.03.2012 addressed to the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur have given the report containing the discrepancies in the said document and in case of future enquiry, summons may be issued in the name of Scientific Officer and Document Expert in advance. 10. In the mean while, the Commissioner of Police filed a counter affidavit dated 06.06.2012 stating that the complaint given by the petitioner was initially recorded in CSR 137/2006. Subsequently, the first petitioner did not turn up and the CSR was closed. Subsequently, case in Crime No.7 of 2011 was registered and the third respondent was arrested and he got anticipatory bail. Charge sheet has also been filed against the third respondent. 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government namely the first respondent, it was stated that even a plain look at 'Khulanama' will show that the document has been forged. The document was sent for comparison of Graphologist, who asserted to be the same as that of the third respondent. Hence, there being a clear case of forgery and deception, investigation was reopened for prosecution. The Association disowned any communication of 'Khula' from the first petitioner. The third respondent having acted illegally, he cannot claim any premium on his acts. Investigation officer was directed to complete the investigation and to file a final report. It is stated that the second respondent was not appointed as Chief Kazi by respondents 1,4,5 and 6. He was appointed by the Backward Class Department. Criminal proceedings against the second respondent is not taken on file till date. The question of compensation does not arise. Even assuming if the second respondent has committed any mistake or error while performing his duty, the State Government is not liable to pay any compensation. 12. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit dated Nil July 2011. Criminal proceedings against the second respondent is not taken on file till date. The question of compensation does not arise. Even assuming if the second respondent has committed any mistake or error while performing his duty, the State Government is not liable to pay any compensation. 12. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit dated Nil July 2011. His defence at this stage cannot be considered as he is standing as an accused. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet dated 04.06.2012 has been filed against the third respondent. Since the charge sheet contains the offence of Sections 468, 471, 418 and 420 IPC pending trial, it is not proper for this Court to pronounce any finding of fact at this stage. In the absence of any judicial verdict on the document in question being pronounced as forgery and in the absence of any finding regarding the second respondent's culpability on the same, the question of fastening the State Government or any of the official respondents with any financial liability of damages will not arise. 13. Mr. M.N.S. Mohamed Habeeb Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the action of the second respondent is clearly reprehensible and being a statutory authority, he has not discharged his duties. He submitted that under the Mohammedan Law, Khula or Khul is defined as follows:- "Rule 114 Khula or Khul (i) A Mohammedan marriage may be dissolved with the consent and at the instance of the wife if she gives or agrees to give a consideraton to the husband for her release from the marriage tie. Such dissolution of marriage is called "Khula" or "Khul". 14. The second respondent is functioning under the Kazis Act, 1880. Under Section 2 of the said Act, the State Government on finding there are considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area can appoint any one of them to be Kazis for such local area. Hence, the second respondent functions as a public authority. However, under Section 4 of the said Act, it has been made clear that any person appointed will not be conferred with any judicial or administrative power on the said office. 15. Hence, the second respondent functions as a public authority. However, under Section 4 of the said Act, it has been made clear that any person appointed will not be conferred with any judicial or administrative power on the said office. 15. In the light of these facts when questioned as to how compensation claim can be maintained at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141 [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and another] In that case, the question came up for consideration was an illegal detention of the petitioner and therefore, the power of habeas corpus was used and compensation was granted for violation guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution. 16. The learned counsel further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 [Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and others] for contending that remedy in public law action is permissible for deprivation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and in respect of public tort, the Court can order compensation. 17. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (3) Supreme 153 [Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and others] for contending that if investigation is not properly conducted, it is open to the State Government to hand over the investigation to CBI. 18. The learned further referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2009) 5 MLJ 1244 [M.A.Meeran (died) and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu] for contending that for infringement of fundamental right by executive authorities, compensation can be ordered. But in that case, the person concerned who was kept in illegal custody was harassed by the said authorities. 19. In the present case, while the petitioner sought to challenge the 'Khula' produced by the third respondent with an endorsement of the second respondent agreeing with the same, that by itself will not give any cause of action. Since the allegation made by the petitioner against the third respondent is one of forgery and that issue is pending consideration before the appropriate Criminal Court. Since the allegation made by the petitioner against the third respondent is one of forgery and that issue is pending consideration before the appropriate Criminal Court. As per the charge sheet produced, the second respondent has not been made as a party and if the petitioner thinks that the second respondent has connived with the third respondent, she can move the learned Magistrate for conducting a further investigation to pinpoint the role of the second respondent. At this stage, seeking for a document which was countersigned by the second respondent to be set aside by this Court will not arise. The documents gathered by the investigation officer are to be put before the Trial Court and should await its assessment. Thereafter, it is always open to the petitioner to seek appropriate compensation against her own husband namely the third respondent or if the petitioner still insists that the second respondent being a statutory authority failed to discharge his duties or that he connived with the third respondent in countersigning the 'Khulanama', such course of action will have to wait the outcome of the trial before the criminal court. The decisions relied on by the petitioner do not support that even before the criminal investigation and trial is complete, the court can order compensation. The decisions cited by the petitioner are all cases where a person was made to suffer illegal incarceration or torture at the hands of the Police authorities and such is not the case herein. Therefore, pending trial, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The rights of the petitioner are relegated to be renewed after the conclusion of the criminal trial. At this stage the writ petition is prematured and no relief an be given to the petitioner, 20. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.