ORDER : It is the case of the petitioner that his son joined the sixth respondent College and was a hostelite. On 07.02.2015, information was received by the petitioner’s family about the death of the petitioner’s son Karthick, on hearing which the family members went to the hostel, where they saw the dead body of their son. A complaint was lodged with the respondent police and after inquest and post-mortem, the body was returned to the petitioner and was cremated. 2. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that, his son was murdered. In this petition, the petitioner has made series of wild allegations not only against the management of the sixth respondent institution, but also against several film stars who were employed as brand ambassadors by the management in their advertisements. 3. The Inspector of Police, J-9 Thoraipakkam Police station has filed a Status Report, wherein it is stated as follows: “2. I submit that the brief facts of the prosecution case is that (i) On 07.02.2015, an intimation received from A.R.R. Hostel warden Tr.Kumar, that one student namely Karthik Prabhu was hanging in his room. (ii) Immediately our team went to the occurrence place and saw that Tr.Kumar and others had already broke open the room windows and doors where the deceased was hanging. (iii) Our team informed to Tr.Muthuraj/defacto complainant about the occurrence that happened in the Hostel room. Immediately he preferred a complaint before the J-9 Thoraipakkam Police Station, wherein he stated that his brother namely Karthik Prabhu studied in Amrita Hotel Management Institute, Chennai, in 2 years Diploma Course in Catering Department and he stayed in A.R.R.Hostel located in Perungudi that he was informed that his brother committed suicide and that they suspect the hostel regarding the same. Hence he requested to investigate the case and to take necessary action. 3. I submit that based on the above complaint a case was registered by Tr.S.Sankar, Sub-Inspector of Police, J-9 Thoraipakkam Police Station in Crime No.440/2015 under section 174 Cr.P.C. on 07.02.2015 at about 15.15 hours and he took up the case for investigation. 4. I submit that the investigation officer visited the scene of occurrence, drew rough sketch and prepared observation mahazar and seized Nylon rope, broken piece of inside patlock under cover of seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses namely Tr.Mohan and Tr.Javith and recorded their statements. 5. 4. I submit that the investigation officer visited the scene of occurrence, drew rough sketch and prepared observation mahazar and seized Nylon rope, broken piece of inside patlock under cover of seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses namely Tr.Mohan and Tr.Javith and recorded their statements. 5. I submit that the Investigation Officer conducted inquest over the deceased body in the presence of 5 panchayatars, subsequently he sent the deceased body to Royapettah Hospital for Postmortem through one Head constable namely Tr.Dilli babu HC P43286. After conducting Postmortem viscera sample was taken from the deceased's body and it was sent to Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Chennai. Later, the deceased's body was handed over to Tr.Kannan, who is note other than the deceased's father. 6. I submit that the Investigation Officer recorded 5 Panchayatars statements and also examined the following witnesses: (i) Tr.Muthuraj -deceased brother (ii) Tr.Kannan -deceased father (iii) Tr.Selvakumar -A.R.R.Hostel warden (iv) Tr.Lokesh (v) Tr.Suresh babu (vi) Tr.Dhanasekar (vii) Tr.Sathyanrayanan (viii) Tr.Vignesh (ix) Tr.Kumar [deceased college mates and Hostel mates] (x) Tr.Abdul Hameed -A.R.R. Hostel Manager (xi) Tr.Balaji -Chief Administrative Officer, Amirtha Hotel Management Institute (xii) Tr.Nageshwaran -Employee, Amirtha Hotel Management Institute All the witnesses statements were recorded. 7. I submit that still the case is under preliminary stage of investigation. So far the investigation reveals that (i) Deceased's father stated that he given advise to his son to concentrate in his studies, as he found to be dull in his studies; (ii) Deceased's brother corroborates the same version of the deceased's father. (iii) Tr.Lokesh & Tr.Suresh babu who are the classmates of the deceased corroborate that on the date of occurrence date the deceased was on leave, due to his illness and he stayed at his Hostel room. Both of them came to their Hostel room and the same was locked as such they broke the door & windows open in the presence of the Manager and Warden and saw that the deceased was hanging. Both of them came to their Hostel room and the same was locked as such they broke the door & windows open in the presence of the Manager and Warden and saw that the deceased was hanging. (iv) Tr.Selvakumar, warden of the A.R.R. Hostel, on 06.02.2014 night has warned the deceased that he has received a complaint from witnesses (iv) to (ix) & others who are the college mates and hostel mates, that their memory card, money are missing, that they have a doubt on the deceased and that in future if he received a complaint with regard to the same, he will inform to the deceased's parents about the complaint made against the deceased. (v) The Investigation Officer found a paper in sincked manner in dust bin, wherein written in "Anitha I love you with heart symbol: K.Karthik Prabhu which was lying in the Hostel room and in order to send the same for comparison, he has given a request letter to the deceased's college, asking them to give the deceased's book and notes. 8. I further submit that as the Investigation Officer, I have conducted the investigation in a fair, free and impartial manner in accordance with law. All the mandatory provisions have been complied during the course of the investigation. The above case is still under preliminary investigation and the Postmortem Certificate, Viscera Sample Report, final opinion from the concerned Authorities; deceased's book and notes from the deceased College, which has to be sent for comparison to Document Export, Forensic Scientific Lab, Chennai are to be received in order to complete the investigation and to file a final report." 4. Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the nomenclature of the petition is irrelevant and that the Court can mould the relief either under Section 482 CrP.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others [AIR 1998 SC 128(1)]. 5. This Court has no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others [AIR 1998 SC 128(1)]. 5. This Court has no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment. On going through the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, it is seen that, after the incident, the petitioner had given an interview to various private Television channels making defamatory and insinuating allegations against the College management, which prompted the College management to issue a legal notice dated 11.05.2015 demanding damages of Rs.50/-lakhs for defamation. Apparently, this petition is only a sequel to the shadow war that is going on between the petitioner and the College management, and in the death of Karthick is being used as a weapon. The prayer (c) in the petition will surely vindicate this inference. "(c) causing a probe into the truth or falsity of the 50 lakh extortion demand, and fix responsibility for the extortion-threat." This Court does not want to go into the merits of the investigation since it is only at an infancy stage and a free hand should be given to the police to proceed with the investigation. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another [ AIR 2002 SC 2225 ] has said that, Court cannot pass orders of omnibus investigation targeting a person, for, that would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, this petition is devoid of the merits and the same is dismissed.