BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/10/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA WP(MD).No.7383 of 2008 V.Jeyaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District. 4.Manikandan 5.Kanagaraj ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to register F.I.R. !For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Ananathapadmanabhan ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasi Kumar, G.A. :ORDER
Heard Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would echo the cri de coeur of
the petitioner to the effect that the blank signed cheques and documents
deposited with M/S. Karunya Chit Funds, Unnamalai Kadai, Kanyakumari District in
connection with loan transaction, were handed over to the opponents of the
petitioner, who are the fourth and fifth respondents by the said Chit Funds and
enabled them to fabricate documents of liability as against the petitioner and
causing excruciating and excoriating pain to the petitioner, whereupon the
petitioner approached the first respondent with his complaint, who directed the
second and third respondents to probe into it; they also arrived at a conclusion
after preliminary enquiry that there was a case to be registered, but even then
no steps have been taken.
3. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent with the judgment
of this Court dated 18.07.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6616 of 2007, communicated vide
circular ROC.No.1110B/07/F/MB P.Dis.No.5/2007, dated 30.07.2007, which was
circulated to all Magistrates in Tamil Nadu, which would adequately protect the
interest of the petitioner. I could recollect fruitfully the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008(2)
SCC 409, which also would posit the aforesaid legal proposition only.
4. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of
the police officials in registering a case, it is for him to file necessary
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, who
was expected to act in accordance with law and as per the aforesaid decisions
cited supra. As such the petitioner is directed to resort to such a procedure.
5. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
arul
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Kanyakumari District.