Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent-Secretary, Home Department, Chennai, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, on 18.09.2011 at about 9 p.m., he travelled in his motorcycle, Bajaj Pulsar, bearing Registration No.TN-63-P-2400 from Koundanur to Karaikudi. At that time, one unknown person dashed in the backside of his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and the petitioner was thrown out from his vehicle. When the petitioner questioned the same, the unknown person threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, he went to the fourth respondent's police station and gave a complaint about the incident. The petitioner and the unknown person were present before the fourth respondent police and the fourth respondent enquired them and sent away the unknown person and the Inspector - Ramachandran abused the petitioner in unparliamentary words and threatened him. Further, the Inspector along with some other police officials assaulted the petitioner with lathi and kicked by boots and threatened him that they will foist a false case against him. After hearing the incident, the petitioner's father came to the police station and requested the Inspector of Police to release the petitioner. The Inspector of Police directed his father to produce 50 sovereigns of gold, which was theft under their jurisdiction. When it was questioned by his father, the Inspector of Police abused his father and threatened him to go away from the police station. Further, the fourth respondent-Inspector of Police along with other police officials took the petitioner in their jeep to some other place and assaulted him for three days continuously keeping him in illegal custody and thereby, the petitioner sustained 14 injuries. On 21.09.2011, at about 6 p.m., near Karaikudi, in a Cashew Nut Thoppu, the police officials took the petitioner and threatened him that they will kill him and throw his body into the forest. Subsequently, the Inspector received a phone call and while he was concentrating on the phone call, the petitioner escaped from the place and went to his relatives' house and on 22.09.2011, at about 12.05 p.m., he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, in A.R.No.4732099 in I.P.No.19529 and on the same day, the petitioner sent a telegram to the respondents 1 to 3. After receiving the telegram, the respondents 1 to 3 did not take any action against the fourth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a detailed representation to the respondents 1 to 3. But till date, no action was taken against the fourth respondent. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to him. 3. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the petition and stated that he received a complaint on 24.09.2011 from one S.Alagarsamy alleging that the petitioner caused an accident on 18.09.2011, at about 9 p.m. On receiving the said complaint, an FIR was registered on 24.09.2011, in Crime No.293 of 2011 and they have made a search for the petitioner. The respondent police came to the Government Hospital, Ramnad, on 22.09.2011, at about 11.30 a.m. The petitioner escaped from the hospital and still he is absconding. Further, the fourth respondent stated that the petitioner did not give any complaint. On information, the fourth respondent went to the Government Hospital. In fact, the fourth respondent received a complaint from the petitioner only on 22.09.2011, by post, in which, he alleged that he met with an accident on 18.09.2011, at about 9 p.m., whereas a telegram was also sent to the third respondent, wherein it was alleged that he was taken to the Karaikudi North Police Station on 18.09.2011, at 10 a.m. and this contradictory averments made in the complaint and the telegram would show that the facts narrated by the petitioner are all concocted one and imaginary for the sake of convenience. When the accident itself alleged to have occurred on 18.09.2011, at 9 p.m., the petitioner could not have been taken to the Karaikudi North Police Station at 10 p.m. on the same day. The fourth respondent further stated that the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.12903 of 2011 before this Court seeking a direction, not to harass him, which was dismissed by this Court on 29.09.2011 and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. I have perused the pleadings and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 6. 4. Heard Mr. M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. I have perused the pleadings and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 6. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, it is seen that the petitioner is not taken into illegal custody by the respondent police and only for the purpose of enquiry based on the complaint, he was taken to the police station. He was not detained at any point of time. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that he was detained illegally is not correct. On the other hand, an FIR has been registered on 24.09.2011, in Crime No.293 of 2011 and he is absconding. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable for compensation and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.