Judgment : Petitioner Mohamed Meeran, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has filed the above three petitions for directions that the respondents shall hand over the cheque bearing No.403975 alleged to have been signed by the petitioner in favour of one Mr.Rajan for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 and the connected F.I.R., registered by the respondent in his Police Station Cr.No.1168 of 1993 for the alleged offence under See.420, I.P.C. along with other cheques claimed to have been issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rupees two and half lakhs and two lakhs respectively in favour of the same person and another one by name Sethuraman and the connected documents to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Madras for the purpose of investigation and for other suitable orders. 2. Petitioner in all the above three petitions is one and the same. Likewise respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.5078 and 5079 of 1993 is the same. But, however, the respondents in Crl.O.P.No.5090 of 1993 are the Deputy Commissioner, Crimes, Madurai and Inspector, District Crime Branch, Madurai. 3. Brief facts on the basis of which the relief of transfer is asked for, as culled out from almost identical affidavits filed in the above three petitions are stated as follows: Petitioner herein, is the sole-proprietor of a gas agency, by name M/s.Selvam Gas Agencies at Madurai. As he was ill in the year 1987, to manage the said business, he believed one of his relatives, by name Mrs. Banu Amjad Ali and accordingly, gave a Power of Attorney. Pursuant thereto, she was managing and that during the said time, Mr.Amjad Ali, husband of the said Power of Attorney holder, petitioner came to know that, without his knowledge and consent, created several forged documents and began to claim the right in the aforesaid business, which resulted in filing of a suit by the petitioner in O.S.No.338 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Madurai, which is pending disposal. .4. In this backdrop, serious bickerings emerged out between the petitioner and Mr.Amjad Ali, who started harassing the petitioner with the help of the local Police in a high-handed manner. The local police, namely, the respondents herein are obliging Mr.Amjad Ali, for the reason that he is an influential person, being known to all the top officials of the Government of Tamil Nadu while he was in service. The local police, namely, the respondents herein are obliging Mr.Amjad Ali, for the reason that he is an influential person, being known to all the top officials of the Government of Tamil Nadu while he was in service. Then, it was the claim of the petitioner that he had never opened any account in the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Simmakkal Branch, Madurai, and that being so, without his knowledge and consent an account was opened in his name by forging his signature with the help of the bank officials by depositing meagre amounts and withdrawals. In this backdrop, upon a false complaint given, respondent police took the petitioner on 4. 1993 to Thilagar Thidal Police Station by force and kept him throughout the night by showing xerox copy of the cheque alleged to have been issued in the name of one Mr.Rajan for a sum of Rs.2,50,000 by the petitioner, which shows that it was subsequently dishonoured. On the next day, on 4. 1993, a xerox copy of another cheque bearing number 403975 for a sum of Rs.one lakh drawn in favour of Mr.Rajan was also shown to the petitioner as if the petitioner had really given the said cheque to the said person, which were dishonoured. Detaining the petitioner for the above two days, Inspector of the respondent Police, compelled him to pay the amounts referred to in the above cheques. 5. Petitioner had never opened any account with the said Bank and made any transaction. He did not know Mr.Rajan and he also did not give any cheque as claimed. A false complaint has been given in the name of Mr.Rajan by Mr.Amjad Ali and with whose guidance and instructions, the respondents/Police have been harassing the petitioner like anything on all the subsequent days by taking him to the Police Station or summoning him to the Police Station several times compelling to settle the amounts referred to in the said cheques. On questioning, the respondents had retorted falsely that there was a complaint lodged by Mr.Rajan and the same had been registered and being investigated. On questioning, the respondents had retorted falsely that there was a complaint lodged by Mr.Rajan and the same had been registered and being investigated. According to the petitioner, no person by name Rajan is directly or indirectly involved but however, Mr.Amjad Ali, husband of the Power of Attorney holder, is doing the whole mischief and that the respondents in all the cases are obliging him and consequently, not investigating the case properly but however indulged in harrassing the petitioner unlawfully and illegally like anything. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes, Madurai, since happened to be a very good friend of Mr.Amjad Ali, he is helping him in all the ways against the principle of law and upon whose pressure, the respondents herein, are harassing the petitioner. Despite the fact that the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, respondents are persisting on their unlawful activities by harassing him in all possible intricate ways. Complaints to the top Police Officials and the Government Authorities sent by the petitioner yielded no result. Petitioner alleges that his signature was being forged by some third persons at the actual instigation and connivance of Mr.Amjad Ali and his wife and that the entire Police Department is obliging them and apprehends that no proper justice or proper investigation could be expected from the respondents if they are allowed to investigate any complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, fearing every harassment and injustice at the hands of the respondents, the relief of transfer is being asked for by the petitioner. 6. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.5078 and 5079 of 1993 and in which, it was contended inter alia that the respondent never harassed the petitioner as alleged nor by the Anna Nagar Police or the District Crime Branch, Madurai town and he is not aware of the complaint sent by the petitioner to the top police officials and the Government functionaries in this regard. But for a cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of one Mr.Rajan, has since been returned as dishonoured and consequently, a complaint was lodged, after registering the same for offence under Sec.420, I.P.C., the respondent is investigating the same in accordance with the procedure and law and in connection with the interrogation, it is admitted that the respondent has requisitioned the petitioner and that except the same, nothing has been done as alleged by the petitioner. It is stated further that for the purpose of comparison of the signatures, specimen signature of the petitioner is required. In short, the whole of the petitioners’ allegations and apprehensions are denied totally on behalf of the respondents. 7. In the light of the above position and circumstances, we have to see whether the petitioner is entitled to get the investigation of all the cases and the complaints filed against the petitioner to be transferred, as prayed for? 8. I have heard by Mr.Syed Fasuddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at length in pointing out the very grievances of the petitioner that he is being harassed like anything by the respondent police at the actual connivance and instructions of Mr.Amjad Ali, who is an arch rival of the petitioner and that besides, the specific case of the petitioner is that he never opened any account in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Simmakkal Branch, Madurai nor had any transactions and that it was his consistent claim in all the three cases that he never gave any cheque for any person by name Rajan or Sethuraman for any amount at any point of time and that all were alleged to have been given by him perhaps with forged signatures under his name. His apprehension particularly is that he is being taken the police station and being forced to pay or settle the amount under the pretext of investigation in a case registered upon the complaint given by one Rajan and Sethuraman. The specific averment is that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes, Madurai Town is a very close friend of the said Amjad Ali and since he is helping and obliging him, the respondents are harassing the petitioner like anything under the guise of the investigation, which is quite unlawful and illegal. 9.Per contra, I have heard Mr.B.Sriramulu, Public Prosecutor and Mr.R.Raghupathy,. 9.Per contra, I have heard Mr.B.Sriramulu, Public Prosecutor and Mr.R.Raghupathy,. Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the very contents of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The substratum of the case of the respondent is one of total denial, as submitted by the Public Prosecutor. I have perused the case diary produced by the respondent in Crime No.1168 of 1993 in G.1 (detective) G Town North Madurai City, which was registered for the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. against the petitioner herein, upon the complaint given by one of Mr.M.S. Rajan. The cumulative effect of the contents of the F.I.R. registered in the above case being investigated by one of the respondents if juxtaposed with the written contentions made on behalf of the respondent in the context of the averments made by the petitioner projecting every grievance thereupon, namely, the harassment by the respondent, I am able to identify that the respondent/Police are not discharging their duties properly and in accordance with the procedure. In short, the very contents of the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.1168 of 1993 above referred against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sec.420, I.P.C., is not at all maintainable. Be that as it may, it is not my intention that the said F.I.R., is to be rejected. But, however, the question that remains to be seen is whether the respondent upon the receipt of any complaint for the alleged dishonour of the cheque if really given by the petitioner has registered the case properly? If not, then, it would expose their dishonest intention and improper attitude being taken prejudicially against the petitioner herein. If the alleged cheques in question is denied by the petitioner, then the proper course would be for any police officer to investigate properly in accordance with the procedural law and that the registering of the complaint against the petitioner by the respondent police would be for the different offence and certainly not for the offence under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code. That apart, a perusal of the Case Diary, clinches the fact that the respondents are not investigating properly in accordance with the procedure and law even assuming that the complaint is true. That apart, a perusal of the Case Diary, clinches the fact that the respondents are not investigating properly in accordance with the procedure and law even assuming that the complaint is true. A mere registration of a complaint given by a person under a particular section of law and whereupon proceeding further is not the only duty of the investigating agency but to find out the genuinenes and truth of the same by examining the concerned witnesses and recording their statements and so on. My casual perusal of the case diary produced by this respondent does not show anything to substantiate the case of the respondent, but however it would probabilise and render support only to the contentions made by the petitioner. In this context, after having perused the very case diary and the very contents of the complaint registered therein in the light of the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent, I am fully constrained to hold that the ends of justice would be met if the investigation of the cases registered against the petitioner in all the above three cases are to be transferred to a different investigating agency as prayed for and that would alone provide a proper remedy. 10. Inherent power of this Court though is expected to be exercised so sparingly but however, if it is required to prevent failure of justice, there can be no difficulty to hold that such a situation is deemed to be a sparing one and accordingly for which, the inherent power under Sec.482 can be used. In this context, for the aforesaid reasoning, I am fully constrained to hold that the apprehensions developed in the mind of the petitioner are genuine and reasonable and with a view to provide proper justice to the respective parties, transfer of all the cases now pending against the petitioner with the respondents have become necessary. 11. In the result, petitions are allowed. Accordingly, investigation of all the three cases pending on the file of the respondents against the petitioner are transferred to the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras, for further and full investigation and to proceed in accordance with the procedural law.