Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to desist any action from interfering with the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, which is purely in civil nature. 2. The allegation made by the petitioner is, at the instance of the fourth respondent, the third respondent has obtained a written statement from the petitioner and threatened him to hand over the property document of his house, for the petitioner's default in making payment. 3 .Firstly, it is noted that the transaction between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is purely a money transaction, which is evident from the averments made in the copy of the plaint, which has been produced by the learned Government Advocate from the third respondent. 4. In such circumstances, the third respondent Police ought not to have interfered with the money transaction between the parties. However, if there is an allegation of cognizable offence had been committed, the respondent Police would be entitled to enquire into the matter and if a case is made out, register the F.I.R and investigate the crime. However, in the instant case, it is purely a money transaction and the letter, which is alleged to have written by the petitioner clearly shows that it is money transaction between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The third respondent Police are not expected to interfere with the matter as there was no prima facie allegation of any criminal offence. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 is closed.