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 22.12.2008 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 notice. In Ramesh Kumari case the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealth with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Minu Kumar case and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumar case was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhar Vs. State of Bihar. The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case and Minu Kumari case. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 with writ petition (C)No.530 of 2002 and W.P (C)No.221 of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid writ petitions.
8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:
(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR; the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.
(2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.
(3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
(4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. "
9. In this context, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri vasu Vs.State of Uthar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440, where the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"High court to discourage writ petitions under Section 482 where alternative remedies under Section 154(3) r/w.SEction 36 or Section 156(3) or
Section 200 Cr.P.C. have not been exhausted. "
10. In the absence of any appropriate complaint seeking police protection, the present writ petitions are misconceived.
11. In the light of the fact situation and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court, the present writ petitions cannot be entertained. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
nvsri To
1.The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., 108, Race Course Road "Srivari Gokul Towers"
Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police, Udumalaipet Police Station, Udumalaipet