AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anu Sivaraman, J
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing respondent No.4 from not to harass the petitioner by summoning or otherwise requiring the presence of petitioner at the Office of Respondent No.4 than otherwise through the procedure established by law;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing respondent No.1 to take strict action on Exhibit P7 complaint without delay by deputing a higher police authority having impeccable service history to enquire into Exhibit P7 complaint against Respondent No.4.”
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6,7,9 and 10. Though notice is duly served on the other respondents, there is no appearance for the said respondents.
The petitioner is working as Branch Head of Kothamangalam branch of Bharath Lajhna Multi State Housing Co-operative Society since June, 2019. She states that she was recently promoted as Director of the above society which has its head office at the Chennai and has about 85 branches across the Tamilnadu, Kerala and Pondicherry. It is submitted that the 5th respondent was introduced to the petitioner by the 6th respondent, who was working as a commission agent for the society. The 5th respondent promised to invest Rs.100 crores in the society on clearing certain papers related to export of Barite 200 as per business arrangements with customers in Saudi Arabia. It is submitted that on believing respondents 5 and 6, the petitioner had given a total amount of Rs.88 lakhs between January 2021 and April 2022 to the 5th respondent and his associates, respondents 7 to 10, through several individual transactions and also through friends. Exhibit P4 is alleged to be receipt of a bank payment done to the 5th respondent and his associates. It is contented that the petitioner had been taken to Canara Bank at Thiruvananthapuram to meet the Manager, who confirmed the credentials of the 5th respondent and the petitioner was also given visa to visit Dubai. It is submitted that the petitioner did not proceed to Dubai on finding that the visa was only a visit visa. Thereafter, the petitioner and the persons introduced by the petitioner demanded return of amounts from the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent introduced his business partner, the 8th respondent, who provided 72 lakhs through bank transfer as loan with 6 lakhs as monthly interest. Thereafter, the petitioner had given Rs.13 lakhs to the 9th respondent and 6 lakhs as interest per month to the wife of the 9th respondent. It is submitted that even thereafter Rs.15 lakhs was sought by the 5th respondent and the petitioner and others had paid the said amount as well. It is contented that Exhibit P6 complaint was submitted by the petitioner before the CI of police on 20.04.2022, but no steps were taken thereon. The 5th respondent had promised to clear all dues by the end of May, 2022 after he returns from Dubai and required the petitioner not to make any police complaints. Thereafter, on 23/5/2022 the 4th respondent and contacted the petitioner over mobile phone and asked her to appear before him at 10 a.m on 24.5.2022 in relation to a complaint preferred by the 5th respondent. Though the petitioner informed the 4th respondent that she is unable to appear, the 4th respondent stated that a complaint had been submitted by the 5th respondent before the chief minister and that if the petitioner did not appear, the petitioner will have to suffer the same fate as Johnson Mavungal. It is stated that the petitioner reported in the office of the 4th respondent on 24.5.2022 at 10 a.m., but she was kept waiting till 4:30 p.m. Respondents 5 and 8 were also present. The petitioner was required to settle the matter by giving the 5th respondent an amount of Rs.2,80,00,000/- on or before 30.5.2022, failing which she has to face severe consequence. The petitioner was made to agree and sign some blank papers. It is submitted that the police officers are party to the fraud committed by the 5th respondent and that though several complaints had been made before the authorities, no action had been taken against them. It is further submitted that on 5.6.2022 when the petitioner was travelling in her car, a lorry rammed into the car from the opposite direction near Pokkattupady and though the petitioner submitted detailed complaints before the 4th respondent, no steps were taken on the same. It is contended that the action of the respondents in forcing the petitioner to agree to pay an amount of Rs.2,80,00,000/- to the 5th respondent by threatening her with false cases and under threat of physical intimidation is illegal and violative of her legal rights.
Respondents 7 and 9 have filed a counter affidavit denying all allegations in the writ petition and stating that they are not necessary parties to the petition at all.
The learned Senior Government Pleader has also placed a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Attingal on record stating that a complaint was submitted by the 5th respondent before the Chief Minister of Kerala stating that the petitioner, through the sixth respondent, had agreed to arrange a loan of Rs.21 crores for his business and collected an amount Rs.2.25 crores from the 6th respondent by cash. It is stated that the complaint was forwarded from the police headquarters to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.5.2022 and the 4th respondent had called the petitioner from his official mobile phone and informed her regarding the allegations and had required her to come to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police to verify the allegations in the complaint. It is further submitted that on the same day, 23 deleted Whatsapp messages originating from the petitioner's phone were found in the respondent's mobile phone. On the same day the petitioner made a phone call stating that she could not appear on 24th and the respondent informed her that if the necessary documents were not produced within 5 days, further action will have to be taken in the matter. It is contented that at about 11:00 a.m. on 24.5.2022, a person introducing himself as lawyer of the petitioner had met the respondents and enquired as to whetehr any FIR was lodged. He was informed that the respondent was waiting for the version of the petitioner before lodging an FIR. In the evening the petitioner came along with one politician and in the presence of Smt.Safija, Woman Police Officer, Women Cell, Attingal, the petitioner was questioned and proceeded to record her statement. She raised an objection to give the statement in the presence of the women police constable. Thereafter, she refused to give the statement and left the office. The allegations as to threat and coercion are all denied. It is submitted that the petitioner did not ask for any copy of the complaint and it was not given to her.
A memo has been filed by Senior Government Pleader on 27/6/2022, producing the complaint filed by the fifth respondent before the Director General of Police and FIR in Crime No.0639 of 22 of the Attingal police station.
A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that since the complaint preferred by the 5th respondent was forwarded to the District Police Chief Thiruvananthapuram, the 4th before the respondent, who was only a Deputy Superintendent of Police does not have business to involve himself in the matter. It is further submitted that an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner on the complaint of the 5th respondent and that the private complaint filed by the petitioner has also resulted in the registration of FIRs against the party respondents as well as the 4th respondent. It is contented that the procedure adopted by the 4th respondent is clearly against the directions of the Apex court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others [2014 (2) SCC 1]. The decisions in Arneesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2022 (4) KHC 570] are also relied on. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Aslam S and another v. State of Kerala and others[2011 (2) KHC 384] and of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7903 of 2020 dated 29.07.2020 are also relied on. It is contented that with regard to criminal intimidation and threat by the 4th respondent, the petitioner had filed complaints before the JFCM Court, Kothamangalam and FIRs are registered and pending investigation.
I have considered the contentions advanced. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent had unnecessarily harassed the petitioner in order to make her agree to refund the amounts allegedly due to the 5th respondent. The specific case of the petitioner is that there were monetary transactions between the parties, that the 5th respondent owes the petitioner money and had agreed to repay the money. There are FIRs registered against the petitioner as well as against the persons against whom she raises allegations. In any view of the matter, the petitioner has preferred a private complaint against the 4th respondent and and an FIR has been registered in respect of the very same allegations. I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that a crime has been registered, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the factual aspects of the allegations raised. It is clear from the pleadings on record that the 5th respondent had submitted a complaint with regard to financial dealings and misappropriations done by the petitioner. which had been duly forwarded to the District Police Chief and it was in connection with the investigation into that complaint that the petitioner had been summoned by the 4th respondent. The factual aspects of what has transpired on 24.5.2022 and the allegations with regard to the illegal actions of the 4th respondent are admittedly pending investigation after registration of an FIR. The contentions of the petitioner are liable to be considered in the said proceedings. It is evidently not for this Court to enter into a roving enquiry into the veracity of the allegations which are clearly questions of fact. In view of the fact that there are crimes registered against the petitioner as well as the party respondents with regard to monetary transactions as well, I am of the opinion that the prayers as sought for in the writ petition cannot not granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that that the contentions of the petitioner are left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings. Further the investigation into the complaints, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law.