ORDER : This Contempt Petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondent for wanton and willful violation of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.81 of 2016, dated 06.01.2016. 2. Originally, the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23716 of 2015 before this Court seeking to direct the respondent-Police to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 28.10.2015 given by the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is a Managing Trustee of Arunachalam Dhandayuthapanni Trust situated in Sathiyamanglam, Erode District. The said Trust is having lot of properties in and around Sathiyamangalam and the subject property at Door No. 14, Sunnambukkara Street at Sathiyamangalam also belongs to the said Trust. The said property had been let out to one Vittal for a long time and after his demise, his legal heirs had vacated the premises and handed over the vacant possession of the properties to the Trust; since then, the Trust is in absolute possession and the said property is under the lock and key of the Trust. While so, On 12.08.2015, one S.G. Srinivasan, S.G. Krishnan and M. Raja and 20 others tried to grab the said property by breaking open the lock of the door. Hence, the petitioner had given a complaint to the respondent-police on 12.08.2015 itself. While so, again on 16.08.2015, the said accused persons, along with hooligans, had attacked the petitioner and the officials of the Trust and unlawfully broke open the lock of the house and demolished the superstructure of the building and erected their name board and changed the house into a Club as "Vasavi Club In". Hence, the petitioner had given another complaint through Post on 17.08.2015 to the respondent-Police. Since no action was taken by the respondent-Police, the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23716 of 2015, as stated supra. This Court by order dated 28.10.2015 disposed of the said criminal original petition, with the following direction_ "3. It is seen that the petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 17.08.2015 by post to the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner is directed to go in person and give a fresh complaint to the second respondent and on such complaint being given, the same shall be enquired into and take action in accordance with law. It is seen that the petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 17.08.2015 by post to the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner is directed to go in person and give a fresh complaint to the second respondent and on such complaint being given, the same shall be enquired into and take action in accordance with law. With the above directions, the criminal original petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner know to law." Pursuant to the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by this Court, the petitioner has again given complaint dated 15.11.2015 and it was assigned C.S.R. No. 454 of 2015 by the respondent-Police. But, no further action has been taken by the respondent-Police. Hence, the petitioner again filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.81 of 2016 before this Court to direct the respondent-Police to investigate the matter. This Court vide order dated 06.01.2016 passed the following order_ "5. In view of the submissions made on either side, this Court directs the second respondent to conduct enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner dated 15.11.2015 in C.S.R. No. 454 of 2015 and upon enquiry, if materials are gathered indicating commission of any cognizable offence, the second respondent is directed to proceed further in accordance with law, as early as possible." Now, the present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the said order dated 06.01.2016 has not been complied with by the respondent-Police. 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a detailed submission, reiterating the contentions made in the affidavit to the contempt petition. 4. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by filing a detailed counter, would submit that earlier the petitioner had given a complaint dated 12.08.2015 through post, stating that he is the Managing Trustee of the Trust along with 7 other members; that one the accused persons, who is the Ex-trustee of the Trust, removed the lock of the Trust put up by the petitioner. The said complaint dated 12.08.2015 was received by the respondent-Police on 24.08.2015 and it was assigned C.S.R.No.330 of 2015. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent-Police went to the scene of occurrence and conducted an enquiry and examined eight witnesses. The said complaint dated 12.08.2015 was received by the respondent-Police on 24.08.2015 and it was assigned C.S.R.No.330 of 2015. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent-Police went to the scene of occurrence and conducted an enquiry and examined eight witnesses. The enquiry revealedd that the petitioner is a life member of the Trust, which was created by one Dhandayuthapani Chettiar on 20.10.1993 along with six others and two members by name Bandarinathan and Subbiah. While so, on 04.10.2013 the petitioner appointed his close relatives as Trust Members and also created a sub-document as if the said Trust is acting under the control of his members and also attempted to grab the property of the said Trust. The members of the new Trust, which was created by the petitioner, are none other than his close relatives. Upon conducting enquiry, the respondent-Police came to the conclusion that the matter is purely civil in nature. Hence, the complaint in C.S.R.No.330 of 2015 was closed by the respondent-Police as civil in nature. Again the petitioner has given complaints dated 16.11.2015 and 20.02.2016 on the same set of allegations and they were received and assigned C.S.R. Nos. 454 of 2015 and C.S.R. No. 59 of 2016. After conducting enquiry, the said complaints were also closed as civil in nature. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that absolute there is no violation of the order passed by this Court, on the part of the respondent-Police. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. As stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecution, since the complaint has been closed by the respondent-Police as Civil In nature, after conducting enquiry, there is no disobedience on the part of the respondent, as alleged by the petitioner, in complying with the order of this Court. Hence, no contempt has been made out as against the respondent. If the petitioner has any grievance as against the closure of his complaint, it is always open to him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. In view of the above, the contempt petition is ordered to be closed.