Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4438
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
M/s. Supreme Yarns Rep. by its Partner C. Gunasekar
Versus
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. & Another
W.P.Nos.17726 to 17733 of 2009 & 18556 to 18561 of 2009
Decided on: 27-10-2009
For the Petitioner:V.M.R. Rajendran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Amizhdhu, Advocate, R2, R. Neelakantan, Govt. Advocate.
Exhaustion of alternative remedies under Section 154(3) r/w. Section 36 or Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. before seeking police protection.
Headnote:
Police Protection - Loan Recovery - Section 154, 154(3), 156(3) - The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking police protection as the petitioners failed to exhaust alternative remedies under Section 154(3) r/w. Section 36 or Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uthar Pradesh, emphasizing the duty of the police to register FIR for cognizable offenses and the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking police protection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought police protection from recovery agents of a bank, alleging threats and coercion. The bank denied sending any agents and stated that the petitioners were chronic defaulters. The Inspector of Police mentioned that the petitioners did not file a complaint with the jurisdiction police and approached the court with a false prayer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not exhaust alternative remedies under Section 154(3) r/w. Section 36 or Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. before seeking police protection, and hence, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Issues: Failure to exhaust alternative remedies under Section 154(3) r/w. Section 36 or Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. before seeking police protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the police to register FIR for cognizable offenses and the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking police protection.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions seeking police protection, citing the failure to exhaust alternative remedies before approaching the court.
The petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking for a direction to the second respondent, Inspector of Police, Udumalaipet to give police protection to the petitioners and to pass such further orders as the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. It is an admitted case that all the petitioners have borrowed loans from the first respondent Bank and their further case is that the first respondent Bank had engaged the recovery agents in order to recover money from the defaulters/petitioners by sending and threatening them. In this context, the petitioners have given a complaint to the second respondent dated 212. 2008 and 20.05.2009. In the complaint, they have named three persons as agents of the first respondent bank and because of their threat and coercion to take all the materials from their office, they seek police protection and they also filed the present writ petitions, since no action was taken by the second respondent.
3. Notice was ordered in these writ petitions.
4. On behalf of the first respondent Bank in W.P.Nos. 17726 to 17733/2009, Mr.Amizhdhu, learned counsel contends that they have not sent any such agents and since the petitioners are chronic defaulters, the management of the Bank reminded them about the non-payment of the dues.
5. With reference to the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, a written instruction is filed by him. It is stated by him that the petitioners have not preferred any complaint to the jurisdiction police and without availing the provisions of Section 154, 154(3) and 156 (3), they have approached this court with a false prayer. It is also stated that the matter relating to the complaint against accused persons M/s.Srinivasan, Venkatachalapathy, Selvakumar, Balan and Thiagarajan is pending in Crime NO.27/2009 before the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore and effective steps are being taken to prosecute those persons who cheated the first respondent Bank. So far as the petitioners complaint is concerned, the jurisdiction police was Kumaralingam Police Station and not Udumalaipet.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that agents sent by the first respondent are residing in several jurisdiction area. Hence, they have preferred a complaint in Udumalaipet Police Station.
7. Learned Government Advocate as per his instructions, submits that petitioners have given complaints only two days before. As per the complaint, which is found in page no.1 of the typed set of papers did not disclose any details of offence viz., date, time and place. The petitioners having sent a representation before two days cannot expect the second respondent to take action and hence, the present writ petitions are not maintainable.
8. Mr. Amizhdhu, learned counsel for the first respondent Bank in W.P.No.17726 to 17733 of 2009 also brought to the notice of this court, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171. The attention of this court was drawn to paragraph nos. 7 and 8, which are as follows:-
“7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case and reiterated in Gangadhar case the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case, Minu Kumari case and Ramesh Kumari case, we find that the view expressed in Raesh Kumari case related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its
