JUDGMENT S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. 1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in these proceedings "B" report is said to have filed by the first respondent Police in Crime No. 376 of 2014 registered with Hebbagoudi Police and pending on the file of the JMFC Court, Anekal. In that view of the mater, according to him, these petitions have become infructuous. 2. Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 would submit to the Court that the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 would intend to pursue the dispute between them and the petitioners in Civil Court by initiating appropriate civil proceedings, which is also taken on record. With this, the present petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. While parting with this, this Court would observe an incident, which is brought to the notice of this Court particularly with the conduct of 3rd respondent, Kishore Kumar, Circle Inspector of Attibele Circle and Inspector in charge of Hebbagoudi Police Station. The incident is with reference a statement being recorded on behalf of Satwinder Singh Sokhey, S/o Swaran Singh Sokhey, aged 45 Years, working as Senior General Manager of 1st petitioner herein. The said statement is said to have recorded in Hebbagoudi Police Station on 25.06.2014 at 11.40 p.m. which reads as under: "As I have been summoned to the Hebbgodi Police Station regarding Case No. 376 of 2014 pertaining to Patel Realty (I) Ltd. I hereby state that I have spoken to the company authorized person to resolve the Smodo 2.0 keys issue and confirm that they shall appear before the Police Station by tomorrow evening or latest day after tomorrow morning (27.06.2014) to resolve the same." This statement was filed along with a memo by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners on 04.07.2014 when respondent No.3 was present before this Court. To a pointed question as to why this statement was recorded in the police station at 11.40 p.m. on 25.06.2014, respondent No. 3 was not having convincing answer for that. However, this day while hearing the parties to these petitions at the time of closing these petitions, learned Additional SPP tried to substantiate that the settlement is recorded in the course of recording his statement, which is voluntarily given by said Satwinder Singh Sokhey. However, this day while hearing the parties to these petitions at the time of closing these petitions, learned Additional SPP tried to substantiate that the settlement is recorded in the course of recording his statement, which is voluntarily given by said Satwinder Singh Sokhey. However, he is not in a position to state why that gentlemen was made to stay in the police station till 11.40 p.m. under what circumstances he was made to give aforesaid statement, for which learned Additional SPP has no explanation. Similarly, on the day when this memo was filed also, the Police Inspector was not having proper explanation for the same. 4. It is further seen that the Police Inspector has affixed his signature on the left side of the statement. It is not as if the statement is recorded before him, which is more like compelling the party to adhere to that. When that question was asked to 3rd respondent, he was not in a position to give any convincing answer to the Court. With this, it is seen that possible attempt on the part of 3rd respondent in trying to coerce the said Satwinder Singh Sokhey to commit himself to give an undertaking before the police with an attempt to make settlement between the parties cannot be ruled out. This kind of practice is rampant in these days, in police officers trying to usurp the powers of the Civil Court in forcibly trying to bring settlement between the parties without any authority of law authorizing them to do so. In the instant case, the recording of the statement keeping Satwinder Singh Sokhey up to 11.40 p.m. appears to be yet another attempt on the part of respondent No. 3, which conduct should not be encouraged. 5. Though the 3rd respondent has filed an affidavit on subsequent date, the contents of the affidavit is not in consonance with his answer to the Court on the date when the memo was filed. It appears that the contents of the affidavit is an after thought and to save his skin in unnecessarily poking his nose in trying to bring about settlement between the parties acting as arbitrator or Ombudsman without there being any authority of law. 6. It appears that the contents of the affidavit is an after thought and to save his skin in unnecessarily poking his nose in trying to bring about settlement between the parties acting as arbitrator or Ombudsman without there being any authority of law. 6. In that view of the matter, the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural is directed to hold an enquiry into the matter and if it is found that there was an attempt on the part of 3rd respondent in exceeding his office in trying to bring about settlement between the parties, to take appropriate action against him and to report the outcome of the same within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order.