The action follows complaints to the principal secretary, Home Department, the governor and the director general of police, alleging that the police officers in question had taken a special interest in the case.

Bhatt, advocate for businessman, Pankaj Mehta, says the dispute relates to a financial transaction wherein his client had struck a deal with Ramchandra Algaj for a cheque for Rs 1.2 lakh in December 1997. However, the cheque had bounced.

Algaj lodged a complaint (which he lateradmitted was false) with the police commissioner, alleging that Mehta was involved in smuggling gold biscuits. Ambedkar then forwarded the matter to Patil.

The latter summoned both parties and instructed them to settle the matter amicably. Finally, Mehta made the payment to Algaj but demanded a receipt for the same. In the acknowledgement (dated December 17, 1997), noted on police stationery, Algaj admitted to falsely alleging that Mehta was involved in gold smuggling as he saw no other way to recover the money. The receipt was also notarised. However, despite the admission, police took no action against Algaj.

In May last year, Bhatt wrote to the governor and the Home Department seeking the government's permission to prosecute Ambedkar, which is mandatory for an officer of the Indian Police Service. In May this year, the governor acknowledged the complaint saying he had forwarded it ``to the chief minister's office for appropriate action''.

In his complaint, Bhatt also points out that by beinginstrumental in recovering money, the commissioner's action was tantamount to extortion. Besides, he points out, Ambedkar had handed the case to the Turbhe police whereas the alleged offence had taken place under the jurisdiction of the Vashi police.

In any case, Bhatt argues, police have no power to adjudicate in recovery of money. According to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the case of dishonoured cheques, a case should be filed before the competent court of the area.

Jaisingh Patil told Express Newsline: ``We are not party to the deal. It was settled out and out. We were helping Algaj out of humanity.'' About Algaj's admission that he had lodged a false complaint, he says: ``Yes, technicallly he had made a mistake but it was to seek the police help.''

In contrast to Patil's candid admission, Ambedkar told Express Newsline it is the police's prerogative to endorse a complaint in the manner they deem fit. He says: ``Being a complaint pertaining to a dishonoured cheque,the complainant can approach the police.'' He says if Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 (fraud) of the Indian Penal Code is a cognisable offence, which brings such cases under the purview of the police. About the false complaint, he adds: ``I had sought a report from Patil who informed me that the matter was amicably sorted out between both the parties''.

About the directives from the Home Department and the director general of police, Ambedkar said, ``I have submitted my report to the DG last month and to the additional chief secretary last week.''