ORDER : This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take departmental proceedings against the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as per the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2013(6) CTC 353. 2. It may be necessary to state the bare facts for deciding the issue in this writ petition: (i) The petitioner gave a complaint dated 24.11.2015 to the respondent police and sought a direction from this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)22782 of 2015 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the 4th respondent to register an FIR on his complaint dated 24.11.2015. This Court, by an order dated 02.12.2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22782 of 2015, passed the following order: “3. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to direct the respective Police to enquire into the veracity of the complaints in adherence to the principles and directions laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari -Vs- Government of U.P and others reported in 2013(4) Crimes 243 (SC) and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the respondent Police finding any prima facie case in the complaints of the petitioners, they shall register a case within a period of one week thereafter. 4. In case of closure of complaints, the respective respondent Police are directed to send a copy of the closure report to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of closure. On receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioners either to make a private complaint or recourse to any other provisions of law.” (ii) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, enquiry was conducted by the 4th respondent on the complaint dated 24.11.2015 and the same was closed and a copy of the closure report was also served on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the closure report, this writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to the respondent police to register an FIR based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2013(6) CTC 353. 3. Heard Mr. Aggrieved by the closure report, this writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to the respondent police to register an FIR based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2013(6) CTC 353. 3. Heard Mr. S. Malaikani, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that once the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it is the duty of the police to register an FIR and thereafter, it is open to the Police to close the investigation, if it is found during investigation that no offence has been committed by the accused. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the Police cannot close the enquiry without registering a formal FIR. 4. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. S. Malaikani. 5. In Lalita Kumari's case, the Supreme Court has also stated that in certain kinds of disputes, it is open to the Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Therefore, this Court perused the complaint dated 24.11.2015, given by the petitioner. On reading of the complaint, it is seen that the opposite party had requested the petitioner for loan and the petitioner had given her Rs.7 lakhs as loan on 27.05.2014. It is also stated in the complaint that the opposite party had executed a document on a Rs.20/-non judicial stamp paper, recording the transaction. Again on 26.06.2014, the petitioner appears to have given a loan for Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party, which is also recorded in a Rs.20/-non judicial stamp paper. It is further stated that the husband of the opposite party had also assured the petitioner that he will discharge the liability of his wife. 6. While so, it is alleged by the petitioner that on 30.08.2015, when the petitioner went to the house of the opposite party, some four persons came and threatened the petitioner that she should not make any demand for repayments, lest serious consequences would ensue. For this incident, that had taken place on 30.08.2015, the petitioner has sent a complaint by post on 24.11.2015. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party appears to be a simple money transaction, which can be classified as commercial transaction, for which, a preliminary enquiry is permitted by Lalita Kumari's case. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party appears to be a simple money transaction, which can be classified as commercial transaction, for which, a preliminary enquiry is permitted by Lalita Kumari's case. During Police enquiry, it transpired that the opposite party had borrowed monies from the petitioner and when the petitioner demanded repayment, an altercation seems to have occurred. The opposite party telephoned 100' Police Control Room and the Police rushed to the place of occurrence and took both the parties to the Police Station, where they have agreed to settle their disputes in Court. 8. It must be noted that the petitioner has suppressed these facts in his complaint dated 24.11.2015, given to the Police. Therefore, the Police has recorded all these events and has closed the complaint, as the dispute is of civil in nature. This Court finds no infirmity with the closure report filed by the Police, warranting issuance of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. In the result, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed accordingly.