Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BIJI ROSHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 1079 OF 2025
For the Appellant: SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C, SRI.E.C.POULOSE
For the Respondents: P.NARAYANAN, SRI.E.C.POULOSE, SRI.SAJJU.S.
The court ruled that a writ petition is premature when the police investigation is ongoing and has yet to incorporate relevant provisions.
Headnote:(A) Banning of Un-registered Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 - Issue of incorporating the offence under the BUDS Act into an ongoing investigation. The petitioner alleges police inaction in the registration of offences related to the BUDS Act regarding the respondent society that defrauded him. The court finds the writ petition premature as the investigation is ongoing and grants time to authorities to resolve the matter. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Judicial review - The court emphasizes that aggrieved parties may re-approach the court with further grievances post-investigation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request regarding police inaction under buds act. (Para 2) |
| 2. writ petition deemed premature; court encourages re-approach if necessary. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (Crl.) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i). issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to incorporate the offence under the relevant provisions of Banning of Un-registered Deposit Scheme, 2019 (BUDS Act, 2019) in Exhibit P4 Crime No. 689/2025 of 6th respondent police station;
(ii). issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 2nd respondent to handover the investigation of Exhibit P4 Crime No. 689/2025 of 6th respondent police station to the 4th respondent Crime Branch CID, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;
(iii). Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the English translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language. And (iv). Such other reliefs as deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police authorities in not incorporating the offences under the Banning of Unregistered Deposit Scheme, 2019 (for short BUDS Act). According to the petitioner, there are clear cut evidence that the 8th respondent registered society, swallowed crores of rupees from the petitioner. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition and this Court as per Ext.P2 directed the police authorities to do the needful. Accordingly a crime is registered. Ext.P3 intimation was given to the petitioner in which it is stated that the investigating authority is conducting the investigation. At this stage, this writ petition is filed stating that the BUDS Act is not added.
3. Heard.
4. This Court perused Ext.P3. A perusal of Ext.P3 would show that the investigating ofÏcer is taking steps to find out whether the BUDS Act is to be added or not. Ext.P3 is dated 17.07.2025. This writ petition is filed on 10.08.2025. A breathing time should be given to the investigating ofÏcer to find out whether the BUDS Act is to be added or not. I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is premature. But the petitioner can approach this Court, if there is any further grievance after a breathing time is given to the investigating ofÏcer.
With the above observation, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is disposed of.
