(1.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondents more particularly the respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to make an investigation of the case and to do the needful by arresting the respondents no. 6, 7 and 8.
(2.) The facts involved in the instant case as can be discerned from the writ petition is that an advertisement was published in the newspaper ' Dainik Asomiya Pratidin' on 5/8/2007 by the Respondent No. 6 wherein few seats of MBBS course in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College at Bangalore was advertised. The Petitioner accordingly approached the Respondent No. 6 who was the Chairperson of North East Educational and Charitable Trust and upon his advise the petitioner sent a bank draft bearing No. 256295 dtd. 16/8/2007 issued by the SBI, Maligaon Branch of Rs.1,50,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to the respondents no. 7 and 8 to be drawn on SBI, Indira Nagar Branch. It was alleged in the writ petition that the said amount was sent as per the advice of the Respondent No. 6 for the purpose of admission of the petitioner's son, wherein the respondents no. 7 and 8 acted as agents for the purpose of admission at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College at Bangalore. Thereupon, the petitioner along with his son went to Bangalore on 30/8/2007 for the purpose of admission and met the respondents No. 7 and 8 who assured the petitioner that the admission would be completed on 3/9/2007 and the total expenses would be Rs.16,00,000.00 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs) for the whole course of MBBS and the remaining amount @Rs.3,50,000.00 (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in every year has to be paid in due course of time. It was alleged that on 3/9/2007, the respondents No. 7 and 8 told the petitioner that the admission could not take place due to some anomalies. However, they asked the petitioner to meet them on 17/9/2007 for admission of the petitioner's son in MBBS course. Further to that the petitioner claims that he was demanded another amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs) by the Respondents No. 7 and 8 as a donation and the admission certificate of the son of the petitioner would be issued. The petitioner informed the respondents no. 7 and 8 that he was not in a position to pay the said amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs) and requested the respondents no. 7 and 8 to return back the amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs) which the petitioner had already paid. At this, the respondents no. 7 and 8 had issued three numbers of cheques, one bearing No. 007156 amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs) to be drawn on IDBI bank payable to all branches throughout India and another cheque bearing No. 231383 dtd. 10/10/2007 amounting to Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh) to be drawn on ICICI Bank throughout India. The said cheques were duly presented by the petitioner on various dates but were returned either on the ground of insufficient funds or on the ground of drawers signature differs.
(3.) Thereupon, the petitioner issued a communication of 16/8/2008 to the Respondent No. 7 to pay the amount to the petitioner as mentioned in the said cheques but the said amount was not paid. Under such circumstance, the petitioner filed a complaint case before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati which was claimed to be registered and numbered as Complaint Case No. 5116/2008. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to mention that no order whatsoever have been enclosed in the writ petition as regards the complaint case No. 5116/2008 but a statement has been made in paragraph 15 that the learned Magistrate had directed the Bharalumukh Police Station to register a case and investigate the matter. The petitioner subsequently on enquiry, came to learn that the Bharalumukh Police Station had sent the said case to the Paltanbazar Police Station on the ground that the Respondent No. 6 resides within the jurisdiction of Paltanbazar Police Station. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the Paltanbazar Police Station further did not carry forward the investigation in the manner provided under the law, for which the petitioner has approached this Court seeking reliefs as abovementioned. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the petitioner on 22/7/2013 had issued a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Guwahati city as well as a copy of the same was also served upon the D.G.P., Assam.