(1.) The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the second respondent to hand over the investigation of the complaint of the petitioner dated 3-11 -1996 to the Central Bureau of Investigation and to direct the C.B.I, to take over the investigation and proceed as per law. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the first respondent to pay to the petitioner, just and reasonable amount as compensation.
(2.) The petitioner, claiming to be an M.Sc. (Agriculture) graduate, states that he had worked as Scale-I Officer in the UCO Bank between 1979 and 1987. Thereafter, he wanted to serve the public and, therefore, he resigned his job and settled in his village. In 1984, he started to run a cinema theatre and also started a Middle School, namely, Sudha English School in 1990. In 1993, he also started an Institute by name Indira Gandhi Industrial Training Institute. As a result of his activities in the area, he was widely known in Thirukkanur and also at Pondicherry. He claims to be a law abiding citizen, hailing from a family of good economic background and he has never been violating law under any circumstances. He would further state that during August, 1995, he placed orders with one Techno Science Industries in Chennai for the purchase of certain machinery and tools for the students in the training institute. The total cost of machinery was Rs. 3.80 lakhs and he has paid Rs. 2.70 lakhs in cash. For the balance of Rs. 1.10 lakhs, he issued a postdated cheque dated 24-10-1995. However, after receiving the cash, the supplier had supplied machinery only in part and even the partly delivered machineries were found to be with serious defects. They were also of poor quality. Therefore, he immediately sent a telegram to the industry informing that they should supply the shortage and rectify the defects. On 6-1-1996, he sent a registered letter pointing out the defects and advised them not to present the post-dated cheque. He also indicated his mind to initiate proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and filed C.C. No. 113 of 1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry. While the same was pending and negotiation was going on between himself and the supplier, the supplier clandestinely presented the postdated cheque during April, 1996, despite the petitioner's advise against the presentation of the cheque. Thereafter , the supplier chose to file a private complaint against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the VII Metroplitan Magistrate, Chennai. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner duly appeared in the case and also engaged a counsel by name Mr. Chemmal, an Advocate practicing at Pondicherry. They were appearing from time to time before the Magistrate. However, on 10-10-1996, he was unable to appear, as he had to attend a funeral ceremony of his close relative and the counsel, who was also his relative, had to attend the funeral ceremony. Therefore, the petitioner had sent a telegram to the Magistrate's Court, praying condonation of the absence and requesting adjourment.
(3.) On 29-10-1996, when the petitioner was proceeding towards the school via Thirukkanur police station, Mr. Arumugam, Sub-Inspector of Police, came running from the police station towards the petitioner and requested him to accompany him to the police station. The petitioner was asked to sit and was olfered tea. The petitioner was further informed that a warrant has been issued by the Chennai Court and they were required to execute it. The petitioner was further advised that he should take steps to recall the warrant, as otherwise, he would be compelled to arrest him and produce him before the Court at Chennai. The Sub-Inspector of Police also stated that he and his Inspector may be paid a sum of Rs. 5.000/- for settling the matter. As the petitioner did not agree, the Sub-Inspector called the Head Constable and told him that he had arrested the petitioner and that the petitioner should be put in the lock-up. The petitioner was put in the lock-up by the Constable. The news of the arrest spread and his Advocate Chemmal came rushing to the police station. After the petitioner apprised him of the incident, the Advocate talked to the Inspector Rarneshkhanthan and Arumugam, the Sub-Inspector. The Advocate was angrily informed that he could do what he can do in the Court. The Advocate advised the petitioner not to pay any money to the police and that he would move the Court for bail. Around 2.00 p.m., the petitioner was offered meals brought from the hotel, which he had refused. He also refused to take the tea which was olfered in the evening.