Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Heard.

2. These writ petitions are by two companies claiming that they are duly registered to conduct chitty transactions, having head office outside the State of Kerala but having subscribers in the State of Kerala. According to them, their collection agents are harassed by the local police in the State of Kerala on the premise that they are violating the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1968 and the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 and also on the premise of having committed offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. The different statements filed by the official respondents show that there are complaints registered against persons who are stated to be employed by the petitioners.

3. A writ petition complaining police harassment cannot be prosecuted to get the seal of approval of the High Court for any particular nature of transaction for one to claim insulation from legal action in accordance with law, even in criminal jurisdiction.

4. A complaint made by a citizen to the jurisdictional Magistrate or a first information statement to the jurisdictional police, leading to the lodgment of FIR, will have to be proceeded with in accordance with law. Any action against the person who is alleged to have committed any illegal act ought to be only in accordance with law. This is the situationally relevant twin face of the guarantee as to Rule of Law in conformity with the Constitution and the laws. Thereby, the right to fair treatment and access to justice would be ensured to the one who says that he is a victim and also to the one against whom an allegation is levelled.

5. We record the submission made on behalf of the official respondents that action, if any, will be only in accordance with law and not otherwise. Recording that submission, we see no ground to issue any further direction in these writ petitions.

In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed.