V AMIRTHARAJ Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to register a case on the complaint given by the petitioner on 05.04.2007 against one Periyanayagam, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, S.P. Office, Salem and four others. The petitioner informs that when a friend of his by name Gopalakrishnan had been taken to the Nangavalli Police Station at the instance of the above said four other persons on 28.07.2004, he had gone over there. At the time the named Police official threatened and beat him and forced him to issue five post dated cheques totalling a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Such cheques were forced of him towards what was claimed as due from his friend Gopalakrishnan. The petitioner had caused a legal notice to the offenders i.e. the Police official Periyanayagam and R. Paramasivam and the three sons of R. Paramasivam. Thereafter, there have been exchange of notices between the petitioner and his friend on one hand and the said R. Paramasivam and his sons on the other hand. As on date, three cases alleging commission of offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been filed by the other party i.e. R. Paramasivam and his sons before different courts. The petitioner had preferred a representation to the respondents herein informing that he had caused notice on 11.08.2004, which had been received by the Police Official Periyanayagam and that a copy of such notice sent to the 2nd respondent had been returned 'as refused'.

(2.) URGING the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner states that by misusing the cheques forcibly received from the petitioner in July 2004, a false complaint for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stand initiated against him. It would be just and proper that a case to be registered on his complaint dated 05.04.2007 and investigated upon.

(3.) CONSIDERING the delay in filing of the complaint and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by directing an investigation upon the complaint of the petitioner. Hence, this Court would dismiss the petition. However, dismissal of the present petition would not be a bar to the petitioner using the notice issued by him in the Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cases against him, of course upon acceptable proof thereof.