Judgment The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a direction to the 1st Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and deduct the said amount from the salary of Respondents 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alleging that the respondents 4 & 5 illegally detained the petitioner from 08.05.2009 to 12.05.2009 and tortured her. According to the petitioner, she and her family members are doing bricks Chamber business in the rented place of deceased Rahima Beevi from the year 1978. 3. After the death of said Rahima Beevi, one Anwar claiming to be sister's son of Rahima Beevi filed O.S.No.280 of 2007 before the learned District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam to vacate the petitioner and others. When the same was pending, one Village Administrative Officer by name Batcha relative of the Anwar threatened the persons, who brought materials to the bricks company on 07.05.2009. 4. The petitioner's mother-in--law made a complaint to the respondents 4 and 5. Instead of registering the complaint given by the petitioner's mother-in-law, the respondents 4 & 5 registered the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner was taken to police station by force on 08.05.2009 and did not produce before the Magistrate within 24 hours. The relative of the petitioner came to the police station and asked the respondents 4 & 5 to release her. The petitioner was released only on 12.05.2009 keeping the petitioner under illegal custody from 08.05.2009 to 12.05.2009. 5. The petitioner's brother and father-in-law sent telegrams to the respondents. The respondents did not take any action on the representation. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit for himself and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 denying the averments made in the affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Village Administrative Officer one Batcha gave a complaint stating that the petitioner, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were assaulted him. Based on his complaint, the case was registered in Cr.No.49 of 2009 for the offences under Section 323, 355 and 506(ii) of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatty on 15.06.2009. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.111 of 2009 and the same is pending for trial. Based on his complaint, the case was registered in Cr.No.49 of 2009 for the offences under Section 323, 355 and 506(ii) of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatty on 15.06.2009. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.111 of 2009 and the same is pending for trial. 7. The petitioner was not illegally detained by the respondents 4 & 5. The petitioner and others were not arrested as they were not available in their address. The petitioner and others filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.3142 of 2009 before this Court and obtained anticipatory bail on 20.05.2009. In the said petition, the petitioner did not allege that she was detained illegally by the respondents 4 and 5 from 08.05.2009 to 12.05.2009. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 9. The allegation of the petitioner is that she was illegally detained from 08.05.2009 to 12.05.2009 and she was tortured. This allegation was denied by the respondents. From the counter affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner and her family members filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.3142 of 2009 before this Court. In the said petition, the petitioner did not allege that she was illegally detained by the respondents 3 & 4 and she was tortured from 08.05.2009 to 12.05.2009. If really she was retained illegally from 08.05.2009 to 12.05.2009 she would have stated so in the Cr.O.P., filed by her for anticipatory bail. In view of this, it is clear that the present allegation made by the petitioner is only after thought. The criminal case registered against her and other by R4 is pending trial. 10. Taking into consideration of the above facts, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.