HIRSINGH T RAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the reluctance on the part of the police authorities to investigate into the matter inspite of specific direction in that regard by the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under the provisions of law comprised under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the accused person, namely mrs. Kanak Podar set up an office at Nariman Point, a show room at Malad and another office at New Marine Lines, Mumbai in February, 2004 and possessed three Ford Cars. It is the case of the petitioner that she represented to be the member of Podar family which is a renowned industrial and philanthropic group apparently running several factories, schools, colleges, hospitals and Trusts. She also is stated to have claimed to have exclusive agency of Nokia mobile phones and promised to give mobile phone hand-sets at cheap rates. According to the petitioner induced by the representation made for supply of the Nokia mobile phones at attractive prices and to be delivered within one month, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 7,05,000/- to the accused in April, 2004. The mobile phones were to be delivered by May, 2004. However, not a single phone was received by the petitioner. On being warned of legal action, the accused gave three post-dated cheques. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds which was revealed from the bank memos received by the petitioner. Having contacted the accused in that regard, she refused to pay the amount and allegedly claimed close contact with a Deputy commissioner of Police, Mumbai and that no criminal action would be maintainable against her. The petitioner, therefore, filed a written complaint with the Police Station on 30-11-2004 but the police refused to register the same. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Judicial Magistrate in december last and after hearing the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. directed the police to investigate into the matter. Consequently the FIR was registered as MECR No. 14 of 2004 on 22-12-2004 at the Marine Drive Police Station. While the investigation was in progress, it is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of a Senior Police Officer the investigation was sought to be abandoned on the ground that it is not a cognizable offence and therefore the police cannot investigate into the matter and the petitioner could take resort to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Inspite of a letter addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 27-1-2005, the police failed to take any action. Hence the petition.