Dismissed

P.Selvaraj v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC9 Aug 2016WP/25369/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ order directing the police to return 10 cheques allegedly forced upon him during an inquiry. The Court held that such relief could not be granted in these proceedings as the petitioner retains the right to defend against prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Writ Petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition for a direction to return seized cheques was dismissed; petitioner may defend potential prosecution under Section 138.

P.Selvaraj Vs The Commissioner of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

W.P.No.25369 of 2016

¶6

P.Selvaraj ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Veppery, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police (Crime), C-3, Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai – 79. 3.P.Thirumal ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Direction and more specifically Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to handover the snatched 10 cheques Nos.232191, 232192, 232193, 232194, 232195, 232196, 232197, 232198, 232199 and 2321100 each drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Ram Nagar Branch, Coimbatore.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dharanidharan

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias [ for R1 & R2]

¶13

Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Namo Narayanan [for R3]

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to handover the 10 cheques which was forcibly obtained from him.

¶16

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. Selvaraj and Thirumal appear to have had some business transaction, in which, it is the case of Thirumal that Selvaraj owed money. While so, Thirumal gave a complaint to the Police against Selvaraj and petition enquiry was conducted in CSR.No.606 of 2015. Thirumal has filed Crl.OP.No.5398 of 2016, for a direction to the respondent Police to register an

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

FIR on his complaint dated 04.09.2015. It is alleged by Selvaraj that during the course of enquiry, the police forced Selvaraj to give cheques to Thirumal and accordingly he had issued 10 cheques to Thirumal for various amounts along with an undertaking letter dated 04.09.2015.

¶19

Admittedly, the cheques issued by Selvaraj had bounced and thereafter Thirumal had issued statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to Selvaraj. While so, Selvaraj has filed the present Writ Petition for a direction to the second respondent-Inspector of Police, C-3, Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai, to return the cheques.

¶20

Heard Mr.M.Dharanidharan, the learned counsel for Selvaraj, Mr.C.Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2; Mr.S.Namo Narayana, the learned counsel for Thirumal.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the cheques are not with the Police and that the Police had merely called both the parties, conducted enquiry and have closed CSR.No.606 of 2015 as early as in the year '2015.

¶22

Mr.S.Namo Narayana, the learned counsel appearing for Thirumal submitted that Selvaraj had given the cheques to Thirumal in discharge of liability and since the cheques got bounced, he is taking action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in accordance with law.

¶23

In the considered opinion of this Court, the direction as prayed for by Selvaraj cannot be granted in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to Selvaraj to set up necessary defence, as and when Thirumal institutes prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶24

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

To:

¶30

1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Veppery, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police (Crime), C-3, Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai – 79. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +!cc to Mr.S.Srinivasu, Advocate Sr.45267 WP.No.25369 of 2016

¶31

tm[co] srg 01/09/2016

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Selvaraj v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Selvaraj v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ravishankar, Aged 40 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs. M. Srikala, Age 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

Velmurugan Vs State Rep. by

T.Ramesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

J.Jonbosco @ Jegan Vs Venkatesan

Hippolistes Fernando Vs Ramesh Kumar