ORDER

This criminal original petition is filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the Petitioners under the guise of enquiry on the foisted complaint of the respondents 3 and 4.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had business transactions with the private respondents. In that regard, some dispute was arisen between them, so that the private respondents lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Based on that, the second respondent is harassing the petitioners. Hence this petition has been filed.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that in this case, the third respondent is the defacto complainant and he is doing whole sale dhal business and the petitioners purchased dhal from him. In that transaction, the petitioners had to pay a sum of Rs.26,29,400/-. While demanding that amount, the petitioners threatened that they will commit suicide and also threatened with rowdy elements. Therefore, in order to get back that amount, he gave a complaint to the second respondent. The petitioners and the private respondents appeared for enquiry and the petitioners gave an undertaking stating that they are ready to settle the amount. But, till now they have not repaid the same and the enquiry is pending.

3.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2015-1-L.W.(Crl.) 318), (ii) L.N.Nithyanantham vs. the State and others (Crl.O.P(MD)No.1776 of 2021, (iii) Dorand and others vs. the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil and other another [2016(2)CTC 286:

(2016)2 MLJ CRL 437], (iv) Shanmugavadivel and others vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni and another [2015-2-L.W.(Crl.) 627], (v) Jagdish Shrivastav vs. the State of Maharashtra and another [S.L.P (Crl.)No.1758 of 2022]

and (vi) Abhyanand Sharma @ Tinku Sharma vs.

State of Bihar and another [W.P.(Crl)No.420 of 2021].

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the respondent police received a complaint from the third respondent and made enquiry. Then, the petitioners gave an undertaking stating that they are ready to settle the amount before 03.08.2022. But, till now they not repaid the same and the enquiry is pending.

5.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police.

6.In this original petition, the petitioner seeks a direction of this Court against the respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

7.The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C envisages three circumstances, under which, inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (1) to give effect to an order under the Code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice. The rule of inherent power has its source in the maxim “Quando lex aliquid alique, concedit conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest”” it means that when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which the thing itself cannot exist.

8.In the instant case, the third respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner alleging some offences. But, according to the petitioner, the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents is in civil nature.

9.The criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. The respondent police on investigation of the complaint, if found that the parties are essentially seeking redressal of their civil claim, the police may follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 157(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

10.The power of investigation officer is statutory one. The power to investigate into the cognizable offence is to be legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provision of Chapter XII of the Code. The