NILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to conduct proper investigation in respect of complaint made by him against the police officers under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that there were two criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending against one Suresh before the 44th and 63rd Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Mumbai and petitioner as power of attorney holder of the complainant obtained production warrant from the 44th Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Mumbai and he informed the same to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha. The wife and relatives of the accused Suresh approached the petitioner and the settlement was arrived at and the amounts were handed over by way of cash and cheque on the same day of execution of the settlement agreement. The complainant approached the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai for withdrawal of the cases. But, the learned magistrate refused to allow the same without procuring the presence of the accused before that court. When this was informed to the relatives, they wanted the money back and threatened the petitioner. So, he approached the police for protection from physical assault and threat to life from the relatives of the said Suresh. He was taken to police station and he was man - handled and forced to execute certain documents and he was illegally confined till he repaid the amount and returned the cheque leaves. So, he made complaint to the second respondent, but no action was taken in this regard. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: "To issue writ of mandamus and other appropriate writ or order and direct the 2nd respondent to take necessary action on Ext.P2."

(3.) THOUGH earlier, the second respondent filed a statement stating that there is nothing found unnatural in effecting the settlement, but he found some irregularities in the station records and on the part of the police officials in dealing with the matter and he filed a report in this regard before the higher ups. Thereafter, as directed by this court, the second respondent filed another statement which reads as follows: