1. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in crime No.174 of 2019 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station. He is also the accused in crime No.2113 of 2018 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. He seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to entrust investigation in crime No.174 of 2019 with a senior police officer to be conducted under the supervision of respondents No.2 and 3. He also seeks a direction to the 5th respondent not to finalise the final report in Crime No.2113 of 2018 till the investigation in crime No.174 of 2019 is concluded.

2. The petitioner is a film producer. The de facto complainant in Crime No.2113 of 2018 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station (referred to as 'defacto complainant', hereafter) acted in a minor role in his movie ‘Chunkzz’. The acquaintance between them developed into intimacy. The petitioner would contend that she used to obtain money from him on the pretext that her father was a cancer patient. Eventually she started blackmailing the petitioner and demanding huge amounts. It was on 26.12.2018. She asked the petitioner to reach Olive Down Hotel, Kadavanthra and he was threatened at that hotel.

3. The petitioner lodged a complaint regarding the threat before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sankumugham on 28.12.2018. Later, on recording his statement, Vanchiyoor police registered crime No.105 of 2019 under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said crime was transferred to Ernakulam Town South Police Station pursuant to which crime No.174 of 2019 was registered.

4. The petitioner would contend that crime No.2113 of 2018 was registered without any basis. The de facto complainant lodged the complaint with a view to tarnish the image of the petitioner. She maintained a good relationship with the petitioner till December, 2018 as could be seen from Ext.P6, which means she was subjected to rape by the petitioner on 10.04.2017 is false. Ext.P6 is the WhatsApp messages between them. The de facto complainant changed twice the date of alleged rape. She did so on realising that on the two dates she mentioned initially the petitioner was not available in India. Although three prominent persons in the film industry were involved in the dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, the investigating officer did not choose to question them. The threat and intimidation perpetrated by the de facto complainant for extracting money is evident from their mobile phone conversation, a recording of which is contained in Ext.P3 C.D. Crime No.2113 of 2018 was registered without even recording the statement of the de facto complaint, which is the mandate of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner is totally innocent and all materials are consistent with that fact. However, the investigating officers, without appreciating those facts, have been proceeding in a wrong direction. No effective investigation has so far been conducted in crime No.174 of 2019. Pointing out those circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Respondent No.5 filed a statement for himself and on behalf of respondents No.4, 6 and 7. Steps taken for the purpose of investigation in crime No.2113 of 2018 and crime No.174 of 2019 have been explained in the statement. It was mentioned that the investigation in both the crimes were almost complete.

6. On 11.10.2021, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get a report filed with respect to Exts.P3 and P6. In obedience to that direction, respondent No.5 filed the clarification report dated 23.10.2021. Apart from explaining about Exts.P3 and P6, what transpired and the materials collected during the investigation in the aforementioned crimes are narrated. It is also submitted that a final report was already submitted before the court in crime No.174 of 2019. That crime was referred as ‘false’. The report was submitted on 17.06.2021. It is also stated that the investigation in crime No.2113 of 2018 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station is already complete and it was done in a just and appropriate manner. The allegation that there were lapses in the investigation was denied. It is also stated that the materials collected were consistent with the allegations contained in the complaint submitted by the de facto complainant. The writ petition is accordingly sought to be dismissed.

7. The petitioner has submitted a reply statement controverting the assertions and allegations in the statements submitted by respondent No.5.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

9. On 11.10.2021 this Court passed an interim order. The said interim order was extended from time to time. The learned Government Pleader, after adverting to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, submitted that having the final report in crime No.174 of 2019 already been submitted before the court, this writ petition has become infructuous. It is stated in the report dated 23.10.2021 submitted by the respondent No.5 that the final report in crime No.174 of 2019 was submitted before the court on 17.06.2021. The conclusions in the said final report was that the allegations set forth in the said crime are false. For the better appreciation of the said contention, the reliefs (a) and (b) sought in the writ petition are extracted below:

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, orders or directions commanding the 2nd respondent to entrust the further investigation in Cr.No.174/2019 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station to a Superior Officer under the supervision of 2nd and 3rd respondents, for effective and meaningful enquiry, investigation and appropriate actions in the crime in question.

(b) Issue appropriate direction directing the 5th respondent not to finalize the charge if any in crime No.2113/2018 of Ernakulam North Police Station without completing the investigation in Crime No.174/2019 of Ernakulam Town Police Station.”

10. As pointed out above, much before this Court passing the interim order, the final report in crime No.174 of 2019 was submitted. The interim order is dated 11.10.2021. The final report was filed on 17.06.2021. The relief (a) in the writ petition is to entrust the investigation in crime No.174 of 2019 with a senior police officer and relief (b) is to direct respondent No.5 not to finalise the final report in crime No.2113 of 2018 till investigation in crime No.174 of 2019 is concluded. Since the final report in crime No.174 of 2019 has already been submitted before the court, both the said reliefs became practically infructuous.

11. The final report was submitted after filing of this writ petition. True, only subsequent to filing of the final report, the interim order was granted. However, it being after filing of this writ petition, it is incumbent upon this Court to consider the merits of the contentions of the petitioner. I may, however, recall the principle that the powers of this Court to interfere with an investigation is an extraordinary power and it is to be used very sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the conversation contained in Ext.P3 C.D. and the chats between the petitioner and the de facto complainant contained in Ext.P6 were appreciated in the proper perspective, respondent No.5 could have well understood that the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant was false and the she really had intimidated the petitioner with a view to extract money from him. When she changed the date of the alleged rape repeatedly, that by itself would show that the allegation was a false story created only for the purpose of threatening the petitioner. If such an incident occurred, as lastly asserted by her, on 26.09.2017, there would not have any cordial relationship between them. Whereas, as is reflected from Ext.P6, till 26.12.2018 their relationship was cordial. It was on that date the petitioner was intimidated and demanded money. In that context investigating officer’s failure to record the statements of the three persons who intervened in the dispute and named by the petitioner became fatal. It is accordingly contended that faulty investigation resulted in a total travesty of justice.

13. In the statements submitted by respondent No.5 the allegations set forth by the petitioner are answered and explained. The reason why the de facto complainant did not lodge a complaint in time and continued her relationship with the petitioner has been mentioned. That fact has been seriously investigated and evidence was collected. Similarly, the reason for change in the date of incident and rape allegedly committed by the petitioner was also seen explained by the de facto complainant.

14. The duty of an investigating officer is to collect evidence concerning matters in issue and relevant facts. The alleged threat, which is subject matter of crime No.174 of 2019 occurred on 26.12.2018. It may be true that subsequently a few persons intervened in the dispute, the evidence concerning that may not be relevant in the matter of proof of commission of the offence. Those facts may be relevant, but, are facts to be proved by evidence and marshelled at that time of trial. The contentions raised by the petitioner and mentioned above have a telling effect on the merits of the case in crime No.2113 of 2018 if a trial in that matter would take place. On an anxious consideration of the materials on record, I do not find sufficient grounds for ordering a further investigation in crime No.174 of 2019. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not enable the petitioner to claim such a relief rather. In view of that matter, I do not venture further to deliberate upon the contentions of the petitioner for, the same would cause prejudice to both parties if a trial ultimately happens in crime No.2113 of 2018. In the circumstances, I find that this writ petition lacks merits. It is accordingly dismissed.