JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has focused the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to direct the Respondents 2 and 3 not to threaten, harass and to initiate action against her on the basis of the complaint except by due process of law by considering the representation dated 15.11.2012 within the stipulated time to be determined by this Court. 2. The Petitioner is doing Real Estate business at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore. Several persons approached her and purchased the housing plots on installment basis. One B.R.Selvarajulu at Edampalayam, Coimbatore had approached her office and booked plots for his relatives and friends, for which, he paid advance amount to her. In turn, she issued eight cheques bearing Nos. 682101, 682103, 682104, 682105, 682106, 682107, 682108 and 682109 in favour of purchasers towards security amount. Also that she had executed a promissory note in their favour. As the purchasers were not willing to purchase the said plots, she returned the entire advance amount on 17.08.2012 paid by them and requested to return the cheques issued in their favour, since they were issued towards security amount. Instead of returning the said cheques to her, they had deposited the cheques No.682105 dated 05.07.2012 drawn on Canara Bank, Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore and Indian Bank, Coimbatore Main Branch and the said cheques were returned by the bankers with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient.' 3. Once the advance amount was returned by her to Mr. Selvarajulu, he ought to have returned the cheque received from her towards security. But he had wantonly deposited the same without her knowledge with a view to harass her. He issued a legal notice dated 31.10.2012 to proceed against her under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. All the cheques issued by her in view of purchasers and others had expired now. Even if there is any dispute arises in connection with bouncing of cheques, the same is to be settled under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. One S. Nagaraj made a false complaint against her before the Respondents/police. On that basis, the Respondents/police are threatening her. When the issue involved is subjected to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the action of the Respondents/police in threatening her is unjust and unwarranted one. The said B.R. Selvarajalu had influenced the police officials and giving trouble to her. One S. Nagaraj made a false complaint against her before the Respondents/police. On that basis, the Respondents/police are threatening her. When the issue involved is subjected to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the action of the Respondents/police in threatening her is unjust and unwarranted one. The said B.R. Selvarajalu had influenced the police officials and giving trouble to her. She made a representation on 15.11.2012 because of the continuous threat made by the Respondents/police. As such, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 5. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 that based on the complaint of S.Nagaraj, S/o.Subbaiyan, 2168, Dasanur, Mettupalayam, Coimbaotre a case in Cirty Crime Brach Cr.No.8 of 2011 under Section 420 and 506(i) IPC was registered on 28.01.2011 against 1.S.Gayathi, age 48 [W/o.Suresh(writ petitioner)] 2.S.Pushapagandam, age 60 (W/o.Chandramohan) and the matter was investigated. It appears that the Writ Petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2011 and valuable documents were seized through house search and she was remanded under judicial custody. The other accused Mrs.S.Pushapagandam secured anticipatory bail from this Court on 30.08.2011 in Crl.O.P.No.8073 of 2011 with the conditions mentioned therein. But the accused Pushapagandham had not complied with the conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.8073 of 2011 dated 30.08.2011. In fact as per direction of this Court, she had not appeared before either the Respondent police or before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No-II, Coimbatore. 6. The writ petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.17623 of 2012 before this Court praying for issuance of a direction by this Court to the Respondent/the Inspector of police, Cyber Crime Branch, Coimbatore not to harass under the guise of enquiry except by due process of law. This Court on 30.07.2012 has dismissed the Crl.O.P.No.17623 of 2012 by taking note of the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner (Gayathri) was an accused in Crime No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Brach, Coimbatore and that the investigation was almost over and further she was not wanted either for interrogation or for enquiry. In effect, the aforesaid Crl.O.P.No.17623 of 2012 was dismissed by this Court by interalia observing that "the question of harassment does not arise". 7. In effect, the aforesaid Crl.O.P.No.17623 of 2012 was dismissed by this Court by interalia observing that "the question of harassment does not arise". 7. In view of the fact that the Writ Petitioner (accused in Crime No.8/11) was arrested and on valuable documents were seized based on house search of her house and as on date, the charge sheet alone is to be filed. After conducting the house search of the petitioner on 29.01.2011, the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore/Police officials had not harassed the Writ Petitioner in any manner as informed by the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3. Since the Writ Petitioner was not threatened or harassed in any manner, subsequent to her arrest, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed her sans merits and consequently it fails. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.