Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the documents available on records. 2. The document dated 29.03.2014 said to have been signed by the intervening petitioner in favour of the petitioner was made before the two Advocates, namely, S.Balakrishnan and M.Muthumurugan, No.20, Agraharam Road, Ramanathapuram. In this regard only, the de-facto complainant has given a complaint. 3. Based on the fabricated document dated 29.03.2014, the petitioner is claiming right over the temple, the learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor contended. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. Therefore, he seeks for police protection. 4. The respondent police is said to be conducted an enquiry and acted according to law. If cognizable offence is made out against the persons, the respondents are directed to register the F.I.R in accordance with law. 5. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the petition cannot be granted and the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.