Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
“a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent and his subordinates not to harass the petitioner and his family members and interfere with the civil dispute pending between him and the 3rd respondent and pressurize him to settle/withdraw same.
b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry into the conduct of the 1st respondent in registering Crime No.699/2013, Crime No.963/2013 and Crime No.486/2014 against the petitioner and filing of final report in a hasty manner when Crime No.1260/2013 and other complaints filed by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent is pending investigation and to take departmental action against the 1st respondent and all erring officials subordinate to him in accordance with law expeditiously.
c) issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. On going through the records and submissions made across the Bar, the genesis for dispute seems to be boundary dispute between petitioner and 3rd respondent. O.S. No.247 of 2013 is pending on the file of Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta wherein an order of injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner against 3rd respondent. There are also two criminal cases which already resulted in filing final report so far as petitioner is concerned and according to State Attorney another case is being investigated into, i.e. Crime No.486 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 294B and 506 IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits, petitioner was illegally detained in the police station by Sub Inspector concerned, which was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, but no action whatsoever is taken, therefore, he is before this Court.
4. However he also submits, private complaints lodged before Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta are referred for investigation. From the submissions of petitioner's counsel what we notice is, petitioner is aggrieved by non-progressing of investigation in so far as private complaints he has lodged and according to him, false cases are registered against him. If he is aggrieved by registration of criminal cases against him, he can always approach proper forum seeking quashing of criminal cases registered against him. He can also bring to the notice of the Magistrate that intentionally, as alleged by the petitioner's counsel, investigation is not being progressed.
5. In the light of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion, no positive direction of any nature could be granted, as already parties are pursuing their remedy before forums concerned. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.V. Asha, Judge.
ttb/22/05