Court dismisses petition for refund & return of cheques, citing lack of evidence for coercion claim.

The court dismissed the petition seeking refund of encashed amount and return of remaining cheques, alleging coercion in procurement due to duty evasion. The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove coercion, advising the petitioner to file a police complaint if genuinely aggrieved. It was held that relief under Article 226 was not warranted in this case, highlighting the case-specific nature of coercion determinations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Procurement of cheques under coercion for alleged evasion of duty.
2. Petitioner seeking refund of encashed amount and return of remaining cheques.
3. Reference to a similar case for refund of encashed amount.
4. Question of whether cheques were obtained under coercion.
5. Possibility of filing a police complaint for genuine grievance.
6. Grant of relief under Article 226.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner alleged that the respondent department procured 7 cheques under coercion due to an alleged duty evasion of Rs. 1,66,77,194.
2. The petitioner sought a refund of the encashed amount and the return of the remaining cheques, claiming no liability for any duty.
3. Reference was made to a similar case where directions were given for refund of encashed amount by the Department.
4. The court considered whether the cheques were obtained under coercion or threat, emphasizing it as a question of fact. The court noted that the mere retraction of earlier statements by the petitioner was not sufficient evidence to prove coercion in obtaining the cheques.
5. Even if the cheques were assumed to be obtained under coercion, the petitioner was advised to file a police complaint if there was a genuine grievance.
6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that in the given circumstances, no relief under Article 226 could be granted to the petitioner. The court highlighted that the decision in the referenced case regarding coercion was not binding in all cases and depended on the specific facts of each case.

---