Judgment V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to pay a just and reasonable amount as compensation to the petitioner and her sister Gayathri and her father Dhanapathy for the torture and prosecuting Mrs. Chandra (died), the mother of the petitioner in a false case by the respondents 2 and 3. 2. According to the petitioner, on 06.02.2008, at about 10 p.m., the police personnel of the second respondent entered into her house and took her parents into their illegal custody for enquiring about her brother viz., Jeya Balaji, who was suspected in connection with a case pending on the file of West Police Station, Thanjavur. The parents of the petitioner informed the respondent police that the said Balaji left the family long back and they do not know his whereabouts and they assured him that they will inform as soon as they get any information as to his whereabouts. One Kumaravel, Inspector of Police, illegally detained her parents at Thanjavur West Police Station from 06.02.2008 till the night of 08.02.2008. The petitioner and her relatives were not allowed to see them. The petitioner's parents were released on 08.02.2008. Again on 25.02.2008, the respondent police personnel came to the petitioner's house and threw out the household articles and took her parents and fabricated a case against her mother Chandra, in Cr.No.629 of 2008 on the file of Thanjavur West Police Station, under Section 8(C) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act [hereinafter called as "the NDPS Act"] and remanded her into judicial custody. 3. The petitioner's father was kept in illegal custody at the police station upto the night of 29.02.2008. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation to the State Human Rights Commission and the second respondent and she filed a petition before the National Human Rights Commission on 07.03.2008. The National Human Rights Commission issued a notice to the second respondent on 26.03.2008. The petitioner's mother was enlarged on bail on 12.03.2008 and she returned to her native place and regularly attended the Court Proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-E.C. Court, Thanjavur. After the trial, the petitioner's mother was acquitted on 19.04.2010. 4. The petitioner's mother was enlarged on bail on 12.03.2008 and she returned to her native place and regularly attended the Court Proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-E.C. Court, Thanjavur. After the trial, the petitioner's mother was acquitted on 19.04.2010. 4. According to the petitioner, she got a news that the police hatched a conspiracy along with senior police officers to kill her brother Jeya Balaji in a fake encounter. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent, the District Collector, Thanjavur, the DIG, Thanjavur Range and the D.I.G. informed the police personnels not to harass the petitioner's family members in future. On 28.04.2008, the petitioner's brother Jeya Balaji was killed in an encounter by the Thiruverambur Police in Trichy District. Thereafter, the petitioner made a petition before the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC No.3591 of 2008. 5. From the Judgment passed in C.C.No.27 of 2008, it is seen that the case of the petitioner was not proved and it is clear that her mother was arrested and remanded into judicial custody by the respondent police with an ulterior motive only to take vengeance for not disclosing the whereabouts of her son. On 27.09.2011, the petitioner's mother met with an accident and died. 6. The first respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the brother of the petitioner was a history sheeted rowdy in Thanjavur District and he was accused in three murder cases. On 28.04.2008, while a police party headed by one Kabilan, Inspector of Police, Tiruvarambur, Trichy District, was conducting bad character check near Panaiyakurichi Graveyard, they caught him and asked him to surrender, he fired two rounds on the police party. The Inspector of Police fired on him and identified him as Balaji @ Bomb Balaji @ Jaya Balaji, a wanted accused in murder cases. They immediately took him to Trichy Medical College Hospital, for treatment and he was given emergency treatment at the Hospital, but he succumbed to the injury. A case in Crime No.237 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 332 and 307 IPC and Section 25(1) A of the Arms Act and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 r/w. Section 174 Cr. P.C. was registered and referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, for enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, conducted an enquiry under Section 150 (3) of the Police Standing Orders. P.C. was registered and referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, for enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, conducted an enquiry under Section 150 (3) of the Police Standing Orders. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, in his findings, has stated that the police officers, after having given sufficient warning to the accused and left with no other option, fired from the pistol. After careful examination of the enquiry report, the Government decided to accept the findings of the enquiry officer and to drop further action in that case. The District Collector, Thanjavur, in his letter, has stated that no Police Standing Order enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the above crime number with regard to the alleged illegal custody and torture by the police personnel to Chandra. 7. The third respondent filed counter affidavit stating that on 05.02.2008, at about 20.30 hrs., one Ravichandran @ Ravi, son of Rengasami, V.P.Koil Street, Thanjavur, was murdered by the petitioner's brother and others at Big Temple, Thanjavur. In this connection, on the complaint of one Marimuthu, S/o.Rengasamy, a case was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Town West Police Station, in Crime No.615 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 506 (ii) and 302 IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, on 08.02.2008, one Chandra and her husband Dhanapthi, who are the parents of the petitioner, were called by the Inspector of Police to the police station for enquiry and after enquiry, allowed to go. It is further stated that nobody was kept in illegal custody at Thanjavur Town West Police Station from 06.02.2008 in the night till the night of 08.02.2008. On 25.02.2008, at about 10.30 hrs., on information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thanjavur arrested the petitioner's mother for possession of 1150 grams of Ganja and registered a case in Crime No.829 of 2008 under Section 8(1) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Thanjavur. The said case was ended in acquittal under benefit of doubt, as the Investigation Agency has not followed the legal formalities. It is also stated that there is no vengeance on the part of the police towards the accused. 8. Heard Mr.P.Rathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 9. The said case was ended in acquittal under benefit of doubt, as the Investigation Agency has not followed the legal formalities. It is also stated that there is no vengeance on the part of the police towards the accused. 8. Heard Mr.P.Rathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment reported in Ms. Arokia Mary Lucia vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai and others, 2004 MLJ (Crl.) 360 wherein in paragraph 30, it has been as under:- "30. Hence, this Court is of the view not only to award sufficient and reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioner but also to direct the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate such disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 and 6 for misuse of authority in registering the false case against the petitioner joining hands with criminals like the accused in Cr.Nos.423 of 2002 and 428 of 2002 of Avalurpet Police Station with the view to malign and mar the reputation and to inflict irreparable loss and hardships to the petitioner." 11. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents relied on the order passed by this Court dated 30.07.2009, in Crl.O.P.No.511 of 2000 [Dr. R.S. Sridhar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai and another], wherein in paragraphs 9 and 10, it has been held as under:- "9. The prosecution case had miserably failed against the petitioner. The first respondent had filed the counter statement and denied all the allegations of the petitioner. The respondent further submitted that the acquittal by the Court does not mean that the respondent police had violated human rights of the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner was acquitted by the Court, the respondent stoutly resists the claim of the petitioner. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent is the competent/proper/fit/independent agency to prevent offences and maintain law and order. The same has been done by the respondent. Though several criminal cases are filed by the prosecution, many of them end in acquittal of the accused. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent is the competent/proper/fit/independent agency to prevent offences and maintain law and order. The same has been done by the respondent. Though several criminal cases are filed by the prosecution, many of them end in acquittal of the accused. Acquittal may be for various reasons and it does not mean that the respondent have not prepared their case properly. If all the acquitted persons, in their respective cases, demand compensation, the Government cannot comply with it for practical reasons." 12. I have perused the pleadings and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 13. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, it is seen that the petitioner's mother was not taken into illegal custody by the respondent police and only for the purpose of enquiry, she was taken to the police station. She was not detained at any point of time and the respondent police has not registered any false case against her. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that her mother was detained illegally in a false case, is not correct. On the other hand, an FIR has been registered on 25.02.2008, in Crime No.829 of 2008 and after the trial, the case was ended in acquittal. As held by this Court in Dr. R.S. Sridhar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai and another, [Crl.O.P.No.511 of 2000, dated 30.07.2009], acquittal may be for various reasons. If all the acquitted persons in their respective cases, demand compensation, the Government cannot comply with it for practical reasons. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable for compensation and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.