JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the owner of the land, building and trees in an extent of 7826 Sq. feet (including all easementary rights in R.S. No. 185 of 2008 sub-divided as R.S. No. 185/8A in West Street, Elumichangapalayam, Tharasuram Post, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District) and the same is in possession and enjoyment by his ancestors and later by himself for the past 70 years by paying property tax, etc. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that since the Petitioner's possession was disturbed in the year 2012 by one R. Raman and R. Lakshmanan, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 591 of 2012 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Kumbakonam for a permanent injunction and a written statement was filed wherein the Petitioner's possession was admitted. The matter stood at the stage of framing of issues and when the said R. Raman and R. Lakshmanan tried to interfere with the possession, the Petitioner filed a Police complaint against him before the Respondents. However, no action was taken on his complaint. But the Respondents joined hands with them and interfered with the Petitioner's possession by demolishing the compound wall and as such, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 seeking for issuance of a direction to the Second Respondent not to interfere and harass him in respect of his property situated in R.S. No. 185 of 2008 sub-divided as R.S. No. 185/8A and R.S. No. 185/6 B, West Street, Elumichangapalayam, Tharasuram Post, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District. In the said Writ Petition, an Injunction Petition was filed seeking to forbear the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to submit that when W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 came up for admission on 29/1/2014, this Court expressed displeasure on the Respondents interference and the matter was adjourned to 31/1/2010. Again, wit the interference and in the presence of the Respondents, the trees were cut down with unruly elements, construction was about to be put up. Again, wit the interference and in the presence of the Respondents, the trees were cut down with unruly elements, construction was about to be put up. One of the unruly elements who was present on the date of demolishing the compound wall and the date of cutting the trees at the presence of the Respondents was one Balu. As such, a complaint was lodged before the Superintendent of Police for which also, there was no action. Resultantly, the Petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 9545 of 2014 seeking direction to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur to take action on the Respondents and against Rangasamy Naidu, Raman and Lakshmanan based on his complaint dated 4/3/2014 within the time determined by this Court. 5. It is also represented on behalf of the Petitioner that W.P. (MD) No. 9545 of 2014 came up for admission on 17/6/2014 and on that day, this Court was pleased to direct the Police authorities to file an affidavit to the effect that they were not interfering with the Petitioner's possession and enjoyment and posted the matter for hearing on 20/6/2014. On 20/6/2014, it was reported before this Court that the Police were on Bando bust duty and not able to appear before this Court and filed an affidavit and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 25/6/2014. 6. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that on 25/6/2014, there was an interim order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014, recording the statement of the Police, but unfortunately, the Respondents who are to act as guardian of Law and Order by willfully disobeying the orders of this Court had registered a complaint in Crime No. 236 of 2014 dated 22/6/2014 based on the complaint of Balu, who came as an unruly element to support R. Raman and R. Lakshmanan, now claiming to be the owner of the land stating that his wife had purchased it is helped by the Second Respondent by putting Petitioner's entire family under threat of arrest and allowing the said Balu to put up construction which is in violation of undertaking given before this Court. 7. Conversely, it is the stand of the First Respondent that there is a civil dispute between the Petitioner and the adjoining land owner one Raman, S/o Rangasamy Naidu and R. Lakshmanan. 7. Conversely, it is the stand of the First Respondent that there is a civil dispute between the Petitioner and the adjoining land owner one Raman, S/o Rangasamy Naidu and R. Lakshmanan. A Civil Suit was filed before the Learned District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 591 of 2012. In the meanwhile, the said Balu, S/o. Sarangapani had lodged a complaint on 20/1/2014 alleging that the Petitioner's Father Kaliyamoorthy along with some ten men had restrained him from doing any work at his site R.S. No. 185/8 L and a receipt was given to the said Balu in C.S.R. No. 22 of 2014 on 20/1/2014. In continuation of the complaint against the Petitioner's Father, the Petitioner and her Father were called for an enquiry. They refused to attend the enquiry by stating that the Civil Suit is pending and they were sort out the disputes themselves. 8. The plea taken on behalf of the Respondents is that the Respondents had brought to the notice of this Court that the Police Officials were not interfering with the civil disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 and the same was recorded by this Court on 25/6/2014 and the matter was adjourned. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously submits that even before passing of an order on 25/6/2014 by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 204, a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner in Crime No. 236 of 2014 on the complaint of Balu, S/o Sarangapani on 22/6/2014 itself and the same is pending for investigation. Subsequently, on 5/8/2014, the Petitioner's Father Kaliyamoorthy and Balu lodged a complaint against one another that they were attacked by others on 31/7/2014 and on receiving the complaint, a case was registered in Crime Nos. 313 of 2014 and 315 of 2014 respectively and they are under investigation. 9. The principle stand taken on behalf of the Respondents is that since this Court had directed the Police not to interfere in civil dispute, the Police Officials had not entered into that dispute site, to avoid allegations against them. However, as the duty caste upon these authorities, it is necessary to look into the complaints and to find out the truth. However, as the duty caste upon these authorities, it is necessary to look into the complaints and to find out the truth. As such the complaints of both the parties were received and the investigation is pending in the matter. In fact, the Police Officials had not entered into the disputed site after 25/6/2014. Therefore, the Respondents have not committed or omitted to act which amounts to contempt of Court proceedings. Also that the First Respondent neither committed contempt not willful disobedience. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the Second Respondent, it is stated that there is a civil dispute between the Petitioner and the adjacent land owner one Raman, S/o Rengasamy Naidu and R. Lakshmanan and a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 591 of 2012 was filed on the file of the trial Court. In the mean while, one Balu, S/o Sarangapani had lodged a complaint on 20/1/2014, alleging that the Petitioner's Father Kaliyamoorthy along with some ten men had restrained him from doing any work at his site at R.S. No. 185/8L and a receipt was given to the said Balu in C.S.R. No. 22 of 2014 on 20/1/2014 in continuation of the complaint against the Petitioner's father and the Petitioner and her father were called for an enquiry and they refused to attend the enquiry by stating that a Civil Suit is pending and also they had stated that they were sort out the disputes themselves. 11. It is represented on behalf of the Second Respondent that when the Petitioner was called for an enquiry, in the meanwhile, on 5/6/2014, a message was received at Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station that there was chaos at S. No. 185/8L and hence the Police party rushed to the spot and made the people gathered there to disburse. Further, the presence of Police party was photographed and enclosed in the Petitioner's typed set of papers. 12. The stand taken on behalf of the Respondents is that their position was brought to the notice of this Court that the Police Officials were not interfering with these Civil disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 and that the Police party went there to maintain peace and Law & Order and the same was recorded by this Court on 25/6/2014 and the matter was adjourned. 13. 13. Moreover, it is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the Respondents that the Criminal Case was registered in Crime No. 236 of 2014 on the complaint of Balu, S/o Sarangapani on 22/6/2014 itself and it is pending investigation. Thereafter, on 5/8/2014, the Petitioner's Father Kaliyamoorty and Balu had lodged a compliant against one another that they were attacked by each other on 31/7/2014 and on receiving both complaints, cases were registered in Crime Nos. 313 of 2014 and 315 of 2014 and the same are under investigation. 14. That apart, it is also represented on behalf of the Second Respondent that she is on maternity leave from 12/8/2014 and she being the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, registered a case on the complaint of the Petitioner's Father in Crime No. 313 of 2014 against Balu, S/o Sarangapani and proceeded on maternity leave. Also, that the Police officials had not taken any side nor supported any one. They had performed their duties in strict compliance of Law & Order and also they had not entered into the disputed side after 25/6/2014. 15. It cannot be forgotten that a Court of Law should not punish each and every one who has violated the Court's order. Unless disobedience is shown to be deliberate and wanton, as opined by this court. In fact, ordinarily, the parties including the orders of this Court cannot escape liability by making a belated apology. Also apology is not intended to operate as an universal panacea. Also, it is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of the offence. It is to be remembered that there cannot be both justification and apology. The two things are incompatible. In Contempt proceedings, a Court of Law should not act vindictively or at the behest of an affected party. 16. As far as the present case is concerned, in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 (filed by the Petitioner) against Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam and four others, this Court, on 25/6/2014 passed the following order. "When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Government Advocate submitted that the respondents 1 and 2, the Police Officials are not interfering with these civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5." 17. "When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Government Advocate submitted that the respondents 1 and 2, the Police Officials are not interfering with these civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5." 17. Later, this Court on 28/8/2014, in the present Contempt Petition (MD) No. 848 of 2014 in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014, in paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 had observed the following:- "2. The learned counsel for the petitioner on earlier occasion, when the case was came up for hearing, after referring to the documents filed in the typed set of papers, submitted that in spite of the interim order passed by this Court on 25/6/2014, the respondent Police at the instance of one Balu had assisted and in fact supervised the demolition activities of the compound call and cutting down the trees etc. In this regard, photographs have been produced, which prima facie shows that a Policeman in uniform standing at the side of the Jeep bearing registration No. TN 49G-0466 and further it appears that the compound wall was an old compound wall and that is being removed and trees were also cut down. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 5/8/2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent Police are harassing the petitioner to withdraw the contempt petition and she has been detained in the Police Station. Therefore, this Court passed an interim order stating that the petitioner shall not be summoned by the respondent Police and subsequently when the matter came up for hearing on 14/8/2014, the respondent Police was directed to file counter affidavit and the matter was adjourned to 27/8/2014 and it is heard today. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent Suyambu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District attested by the second respondent Vijaya, Sub-Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. On perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the respondents have registered FIR in Crime No. 236 of 2014, based on the complaint lodged by one Balu on 22/6/2014, against the petitioner herein. Further, it is seen that the said Balu, by a sale deed bearing document No. 30 of 2014, claimed right over the property in dispute. On perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the respondents have registered FIR in Crime No. 236 of 2014, based on the complaint lodged by one Balu on 22/6/2014, against the petitioner herein. Further, it is seen that the said Balu, by a sale deed bearing document No. 30 of 2014, claimed right over the property in dispute. The contents of the complaint given by the said Balu has not been fully disclosed in the counter affidavit, presumably within certain ulterior motive and intentions, the case in Crime No. 236 of 2014 would have been registered. 5. On the other hand, the petitioner approached this Court even during June 2014 seeking direction upon the respondent Police to take action on her complaint as against the high handed attitude of the said Balu and others. But, the respondent Police instead of taking action based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, preemptively acted when the said said Balu was approached them. This raised a serious doubt as regards the manner in which they conducted themselvess. That apart, the respondent Police would state that they are not interfered with the title over the property and admitted that they have no power to conduct any enquiry on the title to the property. Having said so, it is not known as to how they registered the case in Crime No. 236 of 2014 at the instance of the said Balu. In fact, the respondent Police seeks to justify their action in supervising the demolition activities of the compound wall. Thus, this Court is not satisfied with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, in which the second respondent is also a co-signatory." 18. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and also this Court taking note of a very important fact that when this Court on 25/6/2014 in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 had recorded the following statement, then, it passes beyond one's comprehension as to how and why the Police had registered the case in Crime No. 236 of 2014 at the instance of one Balu. Also, on 25/6/2014 in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 when the statement made on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 by the Learned Government Advocate was recorded by this Court, at that time, it was also not brought to the notice of this Court that in Crime No. 236 of 2014 on the complaint of Balu, S/o Sarangapani, on 22/6/2014 itself, a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner. In reality, this Court, on 28/8/2014 in Contempt Petition (MD) No. 848 of 2014 in paragraph 5 had clearly stated that in fact, the respondent Police seeks to justify their action in supervising the demolition activities of the compound wall. 19. Also, at this stage, this Court very pertinently points out that pending suit in O.S. No. 591 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam between the parties cannot be brushed aside on any score. Strictly speaking, in the matter of property/civil dispute especially where title issues/questions are involved, then, it is not within the domain of Police to enter into that arena and the prudent course of action for the Police would be to direct/advise the parties concerned to approach the competent civil forum for redressal of their grievances in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. However, in the instant case, such a direction/such an advise was not given by the Respondents 1 and 2 instead a Criminal Case came to be registered in Crime No. 236 of 2014 against the Petitioner based on the complaint of one Balu on 22/6/2014 itself. 20. However, in the instant case, such a direction/such an advise was not given by the Respondents 1 and 2 instead a Criminal Case came to be registered in Crime No. 236 of 2014 against the Petitioner based on the complaint of one Balu on 22/6/2014 itself. 20. Be that as it may, and in view of the fact that the Petitioner had filed another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 9545 of 2014 seeking for a direction to be issued by this Court to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur to take action on the Respondents therein and one Rangasamy Naidu, Raman and Lakshmanan, based on his complaint dated 4/3/2014 and also this Court taking note of the fact that in W.P. (MD) No. 1454 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner on 25/6/2014, a statement of the Learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 was recorded to the effect that the Police Officials were not interfering with the civil disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondents 3 to 5 (in Writ Petition) and when there is a dispute in regard to the title to the property involved between the parties, then the registration of Criminal Case in Crime No. 236 of 2014 by the Respondents cannot be justified in any manner, in the considered opinion of this Court. In short, the Respondents, in the considered opinion of this Court have committed a clear contempt under the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore, they are liable to be punished for the same. Accordingly, this Court holds them guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 21. However, this Court having regard to the facts of the present case and the nature of the contempt committed by the Respondents by taking a lenient and liberal view – (i) Directs the First Respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to be paid to the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from today. (ii) Directs the Second Respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) to be paid to the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from today. 750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to be paid to the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from today. (ii) Directs the Second Respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) to be paid to the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from today. (iii) In the event of the Respondents 1 and 2 committing default in paying the fine amount in question imposed by this Court, the Respondents are directed to undergo a Simple Imprisonment in civil prison for a period of two days. 22. With the above observations and directions, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.