K SAMISUNDARA RAJ Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, praying to direct the first respondent to collect the deed of undertaking and the cheques of the State Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch dated 16.7.2003, 16.8.2003, 16.9.2003, 16.10.2003 and 16.11.2003 from the second respondent and return the same to him, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition.

(2.) The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the retired PWD Engineer; that his son viz., Kannan, after his marriage in 1999, is living separately, doing some business independently with whom the petitioner does not have any connection; that he suffered heart attack and he is quietly leading a retired life without indulging himself in any activity, much less any business; that a complaint seems to have been lodged by the second respondent and 3 others against his son Kannan, for his son having allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs.4,94,000/- and failed to return the same, thereby cheating the complainants, but the petitioner was not aware of the same and while so, the first respondent, the Inspector of Police on 27.4.2003 took him to the Guindy Police Station and keeping him under coercion and threat that he would be arrested and remanded to jail, compelled him to issue post dated cheques five in number of the State Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch in favour of the complainants for the amounts claimed by them, the first four cheques each for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the last cheque for Rs.94,000/- respectively dated 16.7.2003, 16.8.2003, 16.9.2003, 16.10.2003 and 16.11.2003.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that thereafter a deed of undertaking was also prepared on the directions of the first respondent in which it was written that as and when the petitioner sells his house, he would honour two cheques dated 16.7.2003 and 16.8.2003 and after selling the second house, the third and fourth cheques would be honoured and for the 5th cheque, he would pay a cash on 10.11.2003 and imposing such conditions, the above cheques were handed over to the second respondent through the first respondent further making him to sign the deed of undertaking along with the complainants; that because of the threat and coercion and being afraid of the police harassment, he gave cheques to the first respondent police and executed the deed of undertaking; that in fact, he did not owe any amount to the complainants, but by sheer misuse of office and power, the first respondent seized all the five cheques from the petitioner and handed over to the second respondent. On such allegations, the petitioner has come forward to file the above Criminal original Petition seeking not only the seizure of the cheques, but also the documents from the possession of the second respondent thereby directing the first respondent to do the same, besides returning them same in favour of the petitioner.