[2010] 8 CLJ 227
The defendant lodged a police report that his company was being cheated and the plaintiff contended that it was not a false report. The Court held that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were issues of evidence to be deliberated and evaluated at the plaintiffs’ criminal trial. The court here was only concerned with the propriety of the police action in arresting both the plaintiffs considering the allegations levelled against him. The police act in arresting the plaintiff was well within the law. The police harboured reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff was all involved in the issuance of the dishonoured cheques. The police had acted reasonably in pursuing with its investigations and thereafter arresting the plaintiff. Clearly there was a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police that the plaintiff has committed the offence complained of by the defendant. Hence the plaintiff’s arrest was proper and lawful in the circumstances. Further, the warrant of remand was lawfully passed by the magistrate, a court of competent jurisdiction. There was no complaint from the plaintiff then about the granting of the warrant of remand. The plaintiff neither appealed nor sought a revision of the granting of the warrant by the magistrate. Thus it was not open to the plaintiff now to contend that the warrant of remand was wrongly granted or that it was totally unconstitutional. The plaintiff has not shown that the procedural safeguards and legal requirements were not in place nor observed. Accordingly the plaintiff’s application was dismissed. Datuk Ganesan acted for the defendant.