High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 27.10.2009CoramThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P.Nos.17726 to 17733 of 2009and 18556 to 18561 of 2009M/s.Supreme YarnsRep. by its Partner C.Gunasekar .. Petitioner in WP.17726/09WP.18556M/s.Sri Selvanayagi Amman Textilesrep.by its proprietorA.Senthilmani .. Petitioner in WP.17727/09WP.18560/09M/s.Saran Textilesrep. by its Partner R.Purushothaman .. Petitioner in WP.17728/09WP.18557/09M/s.Maruvoor Arasi Textiles Inida (P)Ltd.,rep.by its Managing DirectorN.Karthikeyan .. Petitioner in WP.17729/09WP.18561/09M/s.Ganapathy Yarnsrep.by its Partner S.Suresh Kumar .. Petitioner in WP.17730/09M/s.Meridian Integrated Fibres rep.by its Partner R.T.R.Asokan .. Petitioner in WP.17731/0918558/09M/s.Surya Fabricrep.by its Partner Tamilselvan .. Petitioner in WP.17732/09M/s.Vardhaman Fabricsrep.by its Proprietor G.Natarajan.. Petitioner in WP.17733/09M/s.Vardhaman Fabricsrep.by its Partner K.Ravichandran.. Petitioner in WP.18559/09vs.1.The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., 108, Race Course Road "Srivari Gokul Towers" .. 1st Respondent in WP.17726 to Coimbatore.17733/09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.The Global Trade Finance Limited (State Bank India Group of Company) rep.by its Branch Manager 1st Floor, Damodar Centre, 1050 Avinashi Road,.. 1st Respondent in WP.18556 Coimbatore.to 18561/09The Inspector of Police, Udumalaipet Police Station, Udumalaipet .. 2nd Respondent in WP.17726,17727,17729,17730,17733,1855618560,18561/09The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Thirupur.. 2nd Respondent in WP.17728,18557/09The Inspector of Police, Tanjore Police Station, Tanjore... 2nd Respondent in WP.17731,18558/09The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Erode.. 2nd Respondent in WP.17732,18559/09Prayer in W.P.No.17726/2009:-Petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India seeking for issue of writ of Mandamusdirecting the 2nd respondent to take action on the complaint preferredby the petitioner dated 22.12.2008,26.12.2008,20.5.2009 and givepolice protection to the petitioner. For Petitioners: Mr.V.M.R.RajendranFor Respondents for R1 : Mr.Amizhdhu in W.P.Nos.17726 to 17733/2009 for R2 :Mr.R.Neelakantan, Govt.AdvocateO R D E R The petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking for adirection to the second respondent, Inspector of Police, Udumalaipetto give police protection to the petitioners and to pass such furtherorders as the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is an admitted case that all the petitioners have borrowedloans from the first respondent Bank and their further case is thatthe first respondent Bank had engaged the recovery agents in order torecover money from the defaulters/petitioners by sending and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ threatening them. In this context, the petitioners have given acomplaint to the second respondent dated 22.12.2008 and 20.05.2009.In the complaint, they have named three persons as agents of thefirst respondent bank and because of their threat and coercion totake all the materials from their office, they seek police protectionand they also filed the present writ petitions, since no action wastaken by the second respondent. 3. Notice was ordered in these writ petitions. 4. On behalf of the first respondent Bank in W.P.Nos. 17726 to17733/2009, Mr.Amizhdhu, learned counsel contends that they have notsent any such agents and since the petitioners are chronicdefaulters, the management of the Bank reminded them about the non-payment of the dues. 5. With reference to the second respondent, the Inspector ofPolice, a written instruction is filed by him. It is stated by himthat the petitioners have not preferred any complaint to thejurisdiction police and without availing the provisions of Section154, 154(3) and 156(3), they have approached this court with a falseprayer. It is also stated that the matter relating to the complaintagainst accused persons M/s.Srinivasan, Venkatachalapathy,Selvakumar, Balan and Thiagarajan is pending in Crime NO.27/2009before the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore and effective steps arebeing taken to prosecute those persons who cheated the firstrespondent Bank. So far as the petitioners' complaint is concerned,the jurisdiction police was Kumaralingam Police Station and notUdumalaipet. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners states thatagents sent by the first respondent are residing in severaljurisdiction area. Hence, they have preferred a complaint inUdumalaipet Police Station. 7. Learned Government Advocate as per his instructions, submitsthat petitioners have given complaints only two days before. As perthe complaint, which is found in page no.1 of the typed set of papersdid not disclose any details of offence viz., date, time and place.The petitioners having sent a representation before two days cannotexpect the second respondent to take action and hence, the presentwrit petitions are not maintainable. 8. Mr.Amizhdhu, learned counsel for the first respondent Bank inW.P.No.17726 to 17733 of 2009 also brought to the notice of thiscourt, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee andothers Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171.The attention of this court was drawn to paragraph nos. 7 and 8,which are as follows:-" 7. Whenever any information is received bythe police about the alleged commission of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offence which is a cognizable one there is a dutyto register the FIR. There can be no dispute onthat score. The only question is whether a writcan be issued to the police authorities toregister the same. The basic question is as towhat course is to be adopted if the police doesnot do it. As was held in All India Institute ofMedical Sciences case and reiterated in Gangadharcase the remedy available is as set out above byfiling a complaint before the Magistrate. Thoughit was faintly suggested that there was conflictin the views in All India Institute of MedicalSciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case,Minu Kumari case and Ramesh Kumari case, we findthat the view expressed in Raesh Kumari caserelated to the action required to be taken by thepolice when any cognizable offence is brought toits notice. In Ramesh Kumari case the basicissue did not relate to the methodology to beadopted which was expressly dealth with in AllIndia Institute of Medical Sciences case,Gangadhar case, Minu Kumar case and Hari Singhcase. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumar casewas reiterated in Lallan Chaudhar Vs. State ofBihar. The course available, when the policedoes not carry out the statutory requirementsunder Section 154 was directly in issue in AllIndia Institute of Medical Sciences case,Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case and Minu Kumaricase. The correct position in law, therefore, isthat the police officials ought to register theFIR whenever facts brought to their notice showthat cognizable offence has been made out. Incase the police officials fail to do so, themodalities to be adopted are as set out inSection 190 read with Section 200 of the Code.It appears that in the present case initially thecase was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 withwrit petition (C)No.530 of 2002 and W.P (C)No.221of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions weredelinked from the aforesaid writ petitions. 8. The writ petitions are finally disposedof with the following directions:(1) If any person is aggrieved by theinaction of the police officials in registeringthe FIR; the modalities contained in Section 190read with Section 200 of the Code are to beadopted and observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved bythe inaction of the police officials to adopt theremedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspectis concerned, it is for the Government concernedto deal with the prayer. The Governmentconcerned would do well to deal with the matterwithin three months from the date of receipt ofthis order. (4) We make it clear that we have notexpressed any opinion on the merits of the case."9. In this context, it is useful to refer the judgment of theSupreme Court in Sakiri vasu Vs.State of Uthar Pradesh and othersreported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440, where the Supreme Court has heldas follows:-"High court to discourage writ petitionsunder Section 482 where alternative remediesunder Section 154(3) r/w.SEction 36 or Section156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. have not beenexhausted. " 10. In the absence of any appropriate complaint seeking policeprotection, the present writ petitions are misconceived. 11. In the light of the fact situation and the bindingprecedents of the Supreme Court, the present writ petitions cannot beentertained. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarnvsriTo1.The Inspector of Police, Udumalaipet Police Station, Udumalaipet 2.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Thirupur3.The Inspector of Police, Tanjore Police Station, Tanjore.4.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Erode https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The Branch Manager, Global Trade Finance Limited (State Bank India Group of Company) 1st Floor, Damodar Centre, 1050 Avinashi Road, Coimbatore.+ 8 CC to M/s.R.Amzhidhu,Advocate,SR.57006+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.57171,57172W.P.Nos.17726 to 17733 of 2009and 18556 to 18561 of 2009 TS(CO)EM/5.11.09