Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1977 (MAD)

P. Raju v. Inspector General of Police, Madurai

2020-10-16

R.PONGIAPPAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents, especially, the third respondent to give necessary police protection to the petitioner's life, liberty, property covered by four Sale Deeds viz., 2919/2013, 2920/2013, 2921/2013 and 2922/2013, the petitioner's employees, the purchasers of the Plots and consequently, to conduct proper enquiry for the complaint given and take appropriate action as per law and to submit reports to this Court, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to give necessary police protection to the petitioner's life, liberty, the property covered by four Sale Deeds viz., 2919/2013, 2920/2013, 2921/2013 and 2922/2013, the petitioner's employees, the purchasers of the Plots and consequently, to conduct proper enquiry for the complaint given and take appropriate action as per law. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on an earlier occasion, the fourth respondent herein worked in his Farm as Coolie. While the petitioner was arranging to purchase 30.31 Acres of property, located at Ghat Road Junction, Genguvarpatty, the fourth respondent's son, who was employed in the Police Department at Theni, stated that his mother and uncle own lands around 14 Acres adjacent to the property, proposed to be purchased by the petitioner and further, he stated that the same can be developed jointly and therefore, a Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2012, was entered into between the fourth respondent and the petitioner. Further, the said Partnership Deed was registered on 06.05.2013 with the Registrar of Firms, Periyakulam. In the Partnership Deed, Arbitration Clause-20 was extracted. After entering into the Partnership Deed, the petitioner purchased 30.31 Acres in his name, by using his own funds through four registered Sale Deeds viz., 2919/2013, 2920/2013, 2921/2013 and 2922/2013, dated 16.08.2013. Thereafter, during the course of development activities, the petitioner alone spent much money and got D.C.T.P. approval. 2.1. Though the Partnership Deed mentions, each to contribute Rs.5,00,000/-, nothing was contributed by the fourth respondent. Thereafter, during the course of development activities, the petitioner alone spent much money and got D.C.T.P. approval. 2.1. Though the Partnership Deed mentions, each to contribute Rs.5,00,000/-, nothing was contributed by the fourth respondent. At the same time, against her promise, to pool her properties into the Firm, which was illustrated, based on the agreement with the Teachers Welfare Trust, the fourth respondent had sold 5 Acres of land, which is located between the petitioner's property and main road to one Muthusamy, Karur, on 04.07.2014, without the knowledge of the petitioner. Secondly, on 04.01.2016, the remaining 10 Acres of land, which is situated in the backside of the petitioner's property, had also been sold by the fourth respondent along with her brother Sathyamoorthy. 2.2. By virtue of entering into a Partnership Deed, the respondents 4 and 5 have no right or title and interest over the properties purchased by the petitioner under the above said four sale deeds. 2.3. On 04.01.2016, immediately after selling all her lands, the fourth respondent filed a Suit in O.S.No.1 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, for permanent injunction in respect of the properties stands in the name of the petitioner. Though the petitioner pleaded the maintainability of the Suit in view of the agreed arbitration remedy, it was decided against the petitioner. Therefore, challenging the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.49 of 2017 before this Court. After hearing both sides, this Court, vide order dated 13.02.2017, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh enquiry. Ultimately, based on the objection raised by the petitioner's counsel, by relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, interim injunction granted on 04.01.2016, was not extended by the learned District Munsif, Periyakulam. 2.4. Further case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of O.S.No.1 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, the fourth respondent after knowing the Arbitration remedy, instead of availing the said remedy, had filed a vexatious Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2017 before the District Court, Theni, for dissolution of Partnership Deed. However, on 19.03.2019, the fourth respondent moved the original side of the Principal Bench of this Court, by way of filing O.P.No.348 of 2019 and this Court, vide order dated 12.06.2019, appointed a retired Principal District Judge, as the Sole Arbitrator and provided six months' time for passing an award. 2.5. However, on 19.03.2019, the fourth respondent moved the original side of the Principal Bench of this Court, by way of filing O.P.No.348 of 2019 and this Court, vide order dated 12.06.2019, appointed a retired Principal District Judge, as the Sole Arbitrator and provided six months' time for passing an award. 2.5. After filing the above said O.P., the fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.6917 of 2019, seeking injunction for appointment of the Arbitrator and the same was rejected, directing her to approach the District Court, Theni. Subsequently, the fourth respondent has filed Ar.O.P.No.37 of 2019 before the District Court, Theni, and the same was also dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. In the meantime, the fourth respondent sought for amending the Encumbrance Certificate with the District Registrar and the same has also been rejected. Similarly, the fourth respondent filed one another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD)No.12260 of 2019, seeking direction, to direct the District Registrar (Admin), Dindigul, to change the Encumbrance Certificate without any enquiry and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, after issuing notice, a final order has been passed on 12.06.2019 in O.P.No.348 of 2019, by appointing an Arbitrator. 2.6. In the arbitration proceedings, the fourth respondent and the petitioner participated before the learned Arbitrator. Based on the pleadings and the documentary evidence let in by the parties on the point of preliminary issue, the learned Arbitrator had negatived the claim of the fifth respondent on 20.03.2020, on the ground of limitation. Immediately, after receipt of the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the fourth respondent had filed a Suit before the Principal District Court, Theni, and the said Suit was rejected in limine on 07.05.2020. Subsequent to that, the fourth respondent had filed Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020, before the District Court, Theni, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, without giving any notice to the petitioner and the same is still pending. 2.7. On 04.05.2020, the petitioner met the third respondent and handed over the award copy and lodged a complaint stating that the fifth respondent assaulted the Site Manager Arivazhagan. But, the third respondent refused to accept the complaint and therefore, the petitioner sent the complaint through Speed Post on the next day. 2.7. On 04.05.2020, the petitioner met the third respondent and handed over the award copy and lodged a complaint stating that the fifth respondent assaulted the Site Manager Arivazhagan. But, the third respondent refused to accept the complaint and therefore, the petitioner sent the complaint through Speed Post on the next day. On 04.06.2020, the fifth respondent along with 14 Goondas came to the Site and attacked the Site Manager and broke open the door of the petitioner's house, located at Plot No.383, within the said layout. 2.8. Though the petitioner appeared before the third respondent Police and before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, they wanted to get a direction from the Court. Presently, the respondents 4 and 5 and Goondas were sitting within the property and displaying the board indicating all cases and misleading the intending purchasers not to purchase the property and also threatening the Plot owners, who are currently constructing the houses and also torturing them. 2.9. In every month, the respondents 4 and 5 displayed various boards and also assaulted the Site Manager, for which, cases have been registered in various crime numbers. During the year 2019-2020, various complaints have been registered for the unlawful criminal offences committed by the respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen, but the same were not attended by the Police in spite of various reminders. They are as follows:- '' (i) 13.06.2019 – Complaint given by the petitioner's Manager, C.S.R.No.290 of 2019, received for attacking Site Manager by the fifth respondent. (ii) 22.07.2019 – Complaint by the petitioner's son under INP19067551, against the fifth respondent for life threatening warning within the Theni S.P. Office. On 08.08.2019, S.P. Office wrongly closed the complaint stating that there was no such incident, citing no C.C.T.V. is located in that area. No summons were served, but the closing report states that the petitioner's son did not attend the enquiry. (iii) 22.08.2019 – Complaint by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police, Devathanapatty, for life threatening warning to the petitioner, C.S.R.No.385 of 2019, against the fifth respondent. (iv) 29.11.2019 – Complaint by Site Manager Arivalagan against the fifth respondent for attempting to attack the Site In-charge under C.S.R.No. 511 of 2019. (v) 29.11.2019 – Complaint to S.P., Theni, in-person by the petitioner. (iv) 29.11.2019 – Complaint by Site Manager Arivalagan against the fifth respondent for attempting to attack the Site In-charge under C.S.R.No. 511 of 2019. (v) 29.11.2019 – Complaint to S.P., Theni, in-person by the petitioner. (vi) 08.12.2019 – Complaint by the petitioner for removing boundary survey stones of the petitioner's layout Plots and caused major damages to his property, under C.S.R.No.531 of 2019. Also, online complaint ENP19119350 lodged by the petitioner against the fifth respondent. (vii) 09.12.2019 – Complaint to S.P., Theni, in-person by the petitioner. (viii) 16.12.2019 - Online complaint under MNP19122488 by the petitioner and complaint to Devathanapatty Police for ploughing the petitioner's layout Plots and causing major damages by the fifth respondent. (ix) 16.12.2019 – Complaint lodged to C.M. Special Cell by the petitioner for the inaction of Police. (x) 20.12.2019 – Complaint under MNP19124445 by the petitioner for damaging the street names in the property by the fifth respondent. (xi) 23.12.2019 – Complaint to I.G. South for inaction of Police by the petitioner for the above complaints in-person by the petitioner's son. (xii) 28.12.2019 – Online complaint under ENP19127157 by the petitioner for spreading communal violence by the fifth respondent. (xiii) 14.01.2010 – In response to the petitioner's complaint to C.M. Special Cell on 16.12.2019, Theni Police without conducting any enquiry rejected the complaint citing the reason that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry and sent the closure report. No call was made or no summon was received for any such enquiry. (xiv) 17.01.2020 – Online complaint MNP20005243 for closing complaints without any enquiry. (xv) 22.01.2020 – Online complaint RNP20007123 against the fifth respondent for threatening the petitioner's Site Manager Arivalagan. (xvi) 31.01.2020 – Detailed representation was sent by the petitioner to both Theni S.P. and C.M. Cell for wrongly closing the C.M. Cell complaint by the Theni Police. (xvii) 18.02.2020 – for the complaint given by the petitioner to I.G. South, Theni Land Grabbing Cell, conducted enquiry and sent closure report, indicating that the land belongs to the petitioner individually.'' 2.10. The further grievance of the petitioner is that out of 413 Plots, 56 Plots were sold by the petitioner in his individual capacity. The purchasers are legally purchasing the Plots after verifying all the relevant records. On the other hand, the respondents 4 and 5 filed vexatious cases before various forums and also threatened the petitioner. The further grievance of the petitioner is that out of 413 Plots, 56 Plots were sold by the petitioner in his individual capacity. The purchasers are legally purchasing the Plots after verifying all the relevant records. On the other hand, the respondents 4 and 5 filed vexatious cases before various forums and also threatened the petitioner. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the third respondent to give necessary police protection in respect of the properties covered under four sale deeds viz., 2919/2013, 2920/2013, 2921/2013 and 2922/2013. 3. In response to the averments found in this Writ Petition, the fourth respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner is running real estate business in the name and style of P.R.V. Properties from the year 2012, in which, the fourth respondent is also a Partner. The Partnership Firm had purchased properties for the business and sold out the same into Plots as per the Deed. In the said business, the petitioner had not given proper accounts and profit to the fourth respondent. Hence, the fourth respondent had filed a Suit in O.S.No.1 of 2016, before the District Munsif Court, Theni. In the said Suit, the petitioner had filed an application in I.A.No.78 of 2016 for referring the matter to the arbitration. Ultimately, an Arbitrator was appointed and the matter was taken on file as Claim Petition No.145 of 2019 and the same was closed by the Arbitrator on 20.03.2020 on the ground of limitation with the finding that trial in a Civil Court is necessary for determining the right of the parties. 3.1. Since the petitioner has not given proper accounts in respect of the transaction, the fourth respondent herein had issued notice for the dissolution of Partnership Deed on 03.03.2017. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 04.03.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner sent a reply on 13.03.2017 with filthy grounds and hence, the fourth respondent had filed a Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2017 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni, for declaration, permanent injunction and also for other reliefs. 3.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for want of limitation in respect of filing of the claim petition by the fourth respondent before the Arbitrator. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent had approached the Arbitrator after lapse of three years from the date of cause of action. 3.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for want of limitation in respect of filing of the claim petition by the fourth respondent before the Arbitrator. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent had approached the Arbitrator after lapse of three years from the date of cause of action. The Arbitrator was holding the enquiry and passed an award that the claim petition was closed for want of limitation period. Hence, the fourth respondent had preferred an appeal as against the award passed in Claim Petition No.145 of 2019, dated 20.03.2020 and the same is pending before the Principal District Court, Theni. 3.3. After hearing the entire arguments, the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, reserved the matter for judgment on 16.06.2020 and on that day, the petitioner filed two petitions and the same were rightly returned by the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, and thereafter since the petitioner's counsel was not ready for arguments, an order of interim stay, not to alienate the subject matter of the properties till the disposal of Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020 was granted. In fact, the petitioner had filed so many false complaints against the fourth respondent and her son under the inducement of one Kumaresan, who is the Watchman to the disputed property. 3.4. During the pendency of the Ar.O.P., by suppressing the entire material facts, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition, and prayed for sympathy. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is only for threatening the respondents 4 and 5. 4. By denying the averments found in the counter affidavit, the petitioner herein filed reply affidavit stating that the respondents 4 and 5 are fully aware of the Arbitration Clause, which is found in the Partnership Deed. In fact, O.P.No.348 of 2019, for appointment of an Arbitrator, was filed by the fourth respondent before the Principal Bench of this Court only after filing Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2017, before the District Court, Theni. Again, the fourth respondent had filed Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni, which has no jurisdiction to entertain the said Ar.O.P. However, notice has been ordered to the petitioner as a Caveator and thereafter, in spite of various objections as to the maintainability of the Ar.O.P., the same was adjourned and interim injunction was granted on 16.06.2020 as against the petitioner, for not to alienate the schedule properties, till 06.07.2020. Further, the reference to O.S.No.21 of 2017 etc., are not at all relevant now in view of the specific Clause in the Partnership Deed as well as the Award passed on 20.03.2020. The petitioner has not suppressed the interim order granted in I.A.No.2 of 2020. Whereas, the Writ Petition was filed on 12.06.2020 and therefore, the question of suppression of facts does not arise. The main relief of stay is not permissible either on law or on facts and the consequential relief of injunction against the petitioner is neither warranted nor sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from this, when the main Ar.O.P. is not maintainable on account of statutory bar as well as by conduct of the fourth respondent, the said I.A. is liable to be dismissed. The Court below passed an exparte interim order in the above said I.A. and posted the same to 06.07.2020. After granting an order of interim injunction, the same has not been extended after 06.07.2020. In respect of criminal cases cited by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, there was no denial on the side of the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 and the Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2017 are not maintainable. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. 6. It is a pitiable case immediately after arising dispute against the respondents, the petitioner herein lodged so many complaints before the respondents 2 and 3 and none of the complaints have been taken up for consideration except one or two. Further, the land now under dispute is under lock and seal. The photographs produced on the side of the petitioner would show that the fourth respondent made an advertisement that there was a dispute in respect to the plots which have been sold and ultimately, she instructed the intending purchasers for not to purchase any property in the layout alleges that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the said property. 7. 7. In otherwise, it is not in dispute in the year 2012, the petitioner and the fourth respondent had registered a partnership business of real estate in the name and style of P.R.V. Properties and accordingly, the petitioner is the active member and the fourth respondent herein is the silent partner. It is the case of the petitioner that the property covered under four Sale Deeds dated 16.08.2013, is the absolute property of the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, on going through the recital found in the Sale Deed it shows as the petitioner is the partner in P.R.V. Properties. Though the said purchase is not in favour of P.R.V. Properties, the reason for mentioning the petitioner as partner in P.R.V. Properties is not explained on the side of the petitioner before this Court. 9. Further case of the petitioner is that in the Partnership Deed dated 31.03.2012, there was a clause as any dispute arising among the parties herein shall first be settled according to Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Only upon the said clause, the fourth respondent herein approached this Court for appointment of Arbitrator in O.P.No.348 of 2019. On 12.06.2019, this Court appointed a Retired Principal District Judge as Arbitrator. Subsequent to the appointment of Arbitrator, after elaborate enquiry, the learned Arbitrator had dismissed the claim made by the fourth respondent as the said claim is barred under the provisions of Limitation Act. 10. As of now, challenging the same, the fourth respondent herein filed Original Petition before the Principal District Judge, Theni, in Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020 for the relief to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. In the said petition, she had filed an Interim Application in I.A.No.2 of 2020 for restraining the petitioner from alienating and encumbering the petition mentioned properties till disposal of the Original Petition, which filed for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. The learned Principal District Judge, Theni, by an order dated 16.06.2020 granted interim order directing the petitioner not to alienate and encumber the petition mentioned properties. Ultimately, now O.P.No.32 of 2020 filed by the fourth respondent for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator is pending with the learned Principal District Judge, Theni. 11. The learned Principal District Judge, Theni, by an order dated 16.06.2020 granted interim order directing the petitioner not to alienate and encumber the petition mentioned properties. Ultimately, now O.P.No.32 of 2020 filed by the fourth respondent for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator is pending with the learned Principal District Judge, Theni. 11. Apart from the said proceedings, the fourth respondent filed a Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, for the relief of dissolution of Partnership Deed and to pass a preliminary decree of partition, for allotting half share in the disputed property, to render the true and proper accounts and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property and the said Suit is still pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Theni. 12. Though it was claimed on the side of the petitioner as the disputed property is his absolute property, vide Sale Deeds dated 16.08.2013, denying the same, the Suit has been filed by the fourth respondent. 13. In this regard, it is necessary to see the Sale Agreement dated 15.02.2013 in which both the petitioner and the fourth respondent entered into an agreement with one Mr.M.Viswanathan, who is the Managing Trustee of the Tamil Nadu Teachers Housing and Welfare Trust for selling the lands covered in the Sale Deed dated 16.08.2013, alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner independently, for example, Survey Nos.3002/1A, 3015/1, 3016/1, 3016/2, 3017/1A, 3021, 3022, 3024/2B. Therefore, in respect to finding out the ownership of the said disputed property only the Civil Court is having the jurisdiction. Ultimately, it is admitted on either side in respect to the partnership, two proceedings are pending with the Principal District Court, Theni, one in O.S.No.21 of 2017 and another in Ar.O.P.No. 32 of 2020, more than that in I.A.No.2 of 2020 since the interim order was granted in favour of the fourth respondent it cannot be said that the award passed by the Arbitrator is enforceable now. 14. Though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as there was no separate pan number was allotted to the partnership, as already observed the entries made in the Sale Agreement dated 15.02.2013 is clear that both of them are jointly running the business. 15. 14. Though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as there was no separate pan number was allotted to the partnership, as already observed the entries made in the Sale Agreement dated 15.02.2013 is clear that both of them are jointly running the business. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to see the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in P.R.MURLIDHARAN vs. SWAMI DHARMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 wherein it was observed as follows: “11. A Writ Petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a Writ Petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the Writ Petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a Writ Petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. 12. In the case on hand, various disputed questions arose based on a deed of trust and the facts pleaded by the Writ Petitioner and controverted by the other side. The High Court should have normally directed the Writ Petitioner to have his rights adjudicated upon, in an appropriate suit in a civil court. 12. In the case on hand, various disputed questions arose based on a deed of trust and the facts pleaded by the Writ Petitioner and controverted by the other side. The High Court should have normally directed the Writ Petitioner to have his rights adjudicated upon, in an appropriate suit in a civil court. The fact that a Writ petitioner may be barred from approaching the civil court, in view of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or some other provisions, is no ground for the High Court to take upon itself, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the duty to adjudicate on the civil rights of parties for the purpose of deciding whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the police authorities for the protection of the alleged rights of the Writ Petitioner. A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person of a Writ Petitioner can be issued, when the court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. My learned Brother has rightly pointed out that the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my learned Brother that the High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of the Writ Petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sought to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of mandamus prayed for. 13. A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. 13. A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order." 16. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, by way of filing the writ petition, the petitioner cannot ask relief of police protection till the dispute having by the petitioner with the fourth respondent as finally adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. In the said circumstances, the prayer sought by the petitioner is devoid of merits. However, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner herein alleges that the second respondent police had not taken any action in respect of the complaint given by the petitioner. Now on considering the same, the details given by the petitioner disclosing the fact that 13 C.S.R. enquiry and 3 F.I.R. are pending in respect to the complaint given by the petitioner. Therefore, it would appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider the representation given by the petitioner, if any pending on the file of the third respondent as well as on his file. 17. On the other hand, the facts and circumstances of the case reveal the fact that for running the firm in the name of P.R.V. Properties, huge amount was invested, therefore, early disposal of the civil proceedings will be convenient to either side. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2017 and the Original Petition in Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020, within a period as stipulated by this Court. Accordingly, the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, is directed to dispose of O.S.No.21 of 2017 and Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, is directed to dispose of O.S.No.21 of 2017 and Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni, is directed to trace out the complaint given by the petitioner either from his file or from the file of the third respondent and conduct a fresh enquiry by deputing one Deputy Superintendent of Police and complete the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.