T P BASKAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. D. Sasikumar , learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) THE nitty-gritty of the grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the petitioner could succinctly and precisely set out thus: THE petitioner is the Branch Manager of India Infoline Limited, Pudukottai , which is dealing in share trading. THE respondent No. 3 was one of the customers of the petitioner. Since there is decadence and downfall in the share market, the respondent No. 3 is often visiting the petitioner's office and creating trouble as though he had been made to sustain loss because of the false promise or false picture given to the respondent No. 3 by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint with respondents 1 and 2, which invoked no positive response. THE petitioner also is in need of police protection.

(3.) 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.