Soniya Sebastian v. Director General of Police, Kerala State, Kerala Police Headquarters, Vazhuhacaud, Thiruvananthapuram and others

W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 19249 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** SONIYA SEBASTIAN, AGED 34 YEARS W/O ROBINS RAJAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, NEAR ST. GEORGE CATHEDRAL MALAYINKEEZHU BYPASS KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691. BY ADVS. YASH THOMAS MANNULLY SOMAN P.PAUL ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE, KERALA POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUHACAUD, THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695 010. 2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE LAW & ORDER, POLICE TRAINING COLLEGE, NEAR GOVT. GUEST HOUSE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - SOUTH ZONE, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 4 SUNEESH BABU D.S., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - ATTINGAL ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101. 5 ANAS , S/O NAZAR, AGED 38 YEARS, A.K. HOUSE MANCHADIMOODU, CHIRAYANKEEZHU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304. W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 2 6 RAMESH GOPI, S/O GOPI RAGHAVAN , AGED 37 YEARS, THANNICKAL HOUSE KANJIRAMPARA, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA (PART), IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 605. 7 SIBY ABRAHAM, S/O ABRAHAM, AGED 40 YEARS, MUNDPLACKAL HOUSE THANNITHODU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 699. 8 HAMEED SHEREEF, S/O HAMEED , AGED 52 YEARS, KALLUVILA VEEDU, 10 KOTTUMMAL SOUTH, PARAYATHUKONAM P.O., KIZHUVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 104. 9 SAJAN CHAZHOOR JOSE, S/O C.P. JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, CHAZHOOR HOUSE, THATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ST. GEORGE ROAD, KANNANKULAGARA, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682301. 10 RATHEESH HARIHARAN, ADVERTISING HEAD, NATURALZ TRADING,20/B6 WGC ROAD,TUTICORIN, TAMIL NADU STATE - 628 002. 11 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED BY ADVS. LIJU. M.P Santhosh Kumar T. P ## **OTHER PRESENT:** T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.8.2022, THE COURT ON 06.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 3 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6[th] day of October, 2022** ## **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. W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 4 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 5[th] respondent was introduced to the petitioner by the 6[th] respondent, who was working as a commission agent for the society. The 5[th] 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 5[th] 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 5[th] 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 W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 5 credentials of the 5[th] 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 5[th] respondent, the 5[th] respondent introduced his business partner, the 8[th] 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 9[th] respondent and 6 lakhs as interest per month to the wife of the 9[th] respondent. It is submitted that even thereafter Rs.15 lakhs was sought by the 5[th] 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 5[th] 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 4[th] respondent and contacted the petitioner over mobile phone and asked her to appear before ## W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 6 him at 10 a.m on 24.5.2022 in relation to a complaint preferred by the 5[th] respondent. Though the petitioner informed the 4[th] respondent that she is unable to appear, the 4[th] respondent stated that a complaint had been submitted by the 5[th] 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 4[th] 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 5[th] 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 5[th] 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 W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 7 the petitioner submitted detailed complaints before the 4[th] 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 5[th] respondent by threatening her with false cases and under threat of physical intimidation is illegal and violative of her legal rights. - 4.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. - 5.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 5[th] 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 6[th] respondent by cash. It is stated that the complaint was forwarded from the W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 8 police headquarters to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.5.2022 and the 4[th] 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 24[th] 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 W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 9 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. - 6.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. - 7.A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that since the complaint preferred by the 5[th] respondent was forwarded to the District Police Chief Thiruvananthapuram, the 4[th ] 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 5[th] respondent and that W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 10 the private complaint filed by the petitioner has also resulted in the registration of FIRs against the party respondents as well as the 4[th] respondent. It is contented that the procedure adopted by the 4[th] 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 4[th] respondent, the petitioner had filed complaints before the JFCM Court, Kothamangalam and FIRs are registered and pending investigation. - 8.I have considered the contentions advanced. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the 4[th] respondent had W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 11 unnecessarily harassed the petitioner in order to make her agree to refund the amounts allegedly due to the 5[th] respondent. The specific case of the petitioner is that there were monetary transactions between the parties, that the 5[th] 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 4[th] 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 5[th] 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 4[th] respondent. The factual aspects of what has transpired on 24.5.2022 and the W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 12 allegations with regard to the illegal actions of the 4[th] 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. **==> picture [26 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 13 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19249/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 17-10-2021 BY RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO THE PETITIONER. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 12-09-2021 TO RESPONDENT NO.5'S COMPANY NATURALZ TRADING, TUTRICORIN. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED BETWEEN RESPONDENT NO. 5 AND RESPONDENT NO. 9. - Exhibit P4 RECEIPTS FOR BANK PAYMENTS DONE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 AND HIS ASSOCIATES. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF EVISA IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER ISSUED BY GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF RESIDENCY AND FOREIGNERS AFFAIRS, DUBAI. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 20-04-2022 GIVEN TO CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM AND RECEIPT DATED 20-042022. - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 27-05-2022 GIVEN TO RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND RECEIPT DATED 28-05-2022. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 28-05-2022 ISSUED BY STATE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY - KERALA. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 25-05-2022 GIVEN TO THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION AND RECEIPT DATED 25-05-2022. W.P.(C).No.19249 of 2022 14 - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT GIVEN TO CI, KOTHAMANGALAM AND RECEIPT DATED 05-062022. - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19-06-2012 IN W.P.(C) NO. 14111 OF 2012 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18-11-2016 IN W.P.(C) NO. 124141 OF 2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF AUDIO FILE OF THE TWO MOBILE CALL CONVERSATION BETWEEN RESPONDENT NO. 5 AND PETITIONER ON 2405-2022 WRITTEN IN DVD. - - Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 639 OF 2022 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. - Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF CRIME NO. 1238 OF 2022 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. - Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF CRIME NO. 1258 OF 2022 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. - Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COVER PAGES ALONG WITH CHAPTER II AND CHAPTER III OF HANDBOOK ON POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, OVERSIGHT AND INTEGRITY PUBLISHED BY UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME. Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 2 AUDIO FILE OF MOBILE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND PETITIONER WRITTEN IN EXHIBIT P13 DVD. True copy PS to Judge