The petitioner must pursue remedies available under the Designated Court as per the BUDS Act, limiting the High Court's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the fourth respondent to grant permission to compound the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner's husband.

2. The petitioner is the wife of one Sebastian, who is the Managing Director of Dhanakodi Chits Private Limited (‘Company’, for short). In 2023, the Branch Managers of the Company were arrested by the police, stating that they had cheated their customers by not paying the chitty amount. There are several cases registered against the Company. The Managing Director and the Directors of the Company are currently in judicial custody. Due to the registration of the crimes, the police are harassing the officials of the petitioner's company without any written complaint. The Managing Director of the Company had filed WP(C) No. 6902/2023 before this Court and Ext. P1 order was passed. Despite the order, the police have illegally sealed the branch offices of the Company. There are 350 cases registered in the Wayanad, Kozhikode, Malappuram and Kannur districts under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act). Due to the invocation of the provisions of the Act, the petitioner's personal accounts have also been freezed. Even though the petitioner submitted a representation before the Competent Authority, by Ext. P3 reply, the petitioner was directed to approach the Designated Court. The offence committed under Section 4 of the BUDS Act, without previous sanction, is a compoundable offence. In an identical matter, the Government has permitted to compound the offence. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to compound the offence.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, in view of Section 13 r/w Section 18 of the BUDS Act, the petitioner’s remedy is to approach the Designated Court for the redressal of her grievances. As there are 350 cases registered by various police stations against the Company, this Court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in this particular case especially because the cases are pending before the Designated Court. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

5. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, and in view of alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

In the above circumstances, I dismiss the writ petition, by reserving the right of the petitioner to work out her statutory remedies, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE mtk/18.03.25 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16851/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

08.03.2023 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

NO.6902/2023 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2022 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE KOZHIKKODE DIVISION Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.03.2024 OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

07.03.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTERS OFFICE, KERALA Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

05.07.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

05.02.2024 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 6TH RESPONDENT