The court underscored the importance of procedural propriety in police investigations, noting that ongoing criminal complaints should dictate the resolution of disputes without judicial interference at preliminary stages.

JUDGMENT

1.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.”

2.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.

3.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 whi