<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday(July 1) restrained the Karnataka police from taking any coercive action against a woman accused of inducing people of over Rs 50 crore in the name of supplying gold on lower rates in Bengaluru.</p>.<p>A vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and B R Gavai issued notice to the Karnataka government on a plea made by Preethi Sunil, a resident of Rajarajeshwari Nagar.</p>.<p>After conducting virtual hearing, the court protected the petitioner as an interim measure and sought a response from the state government within four weeks on her special leave petition filed against March 20, 2020 order by the High Court dismissing her plea for anticipatory bail.</p>.<p>The petitioner, her husband Sunil Thakker and others were accused of duping a complainants of Rs 47 crore for supplying gold at cheap rates. Instead of repaying the money, they issued cheques and entered into some agreements which were not honoured. She faced another case related to cheating a different person of Rs 2.24 crore in a similar fashion.</p>.<p>In her plea, she said she was ready to cooperate with the investigation. She also asserted that the failure to repay was due to business-related reasons and there was no intention to cheat the complainant.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday(July 1) restrained the Karnataka police from taking any coercive action against a woman accused of inducing people of over Rs 50 crore in the name of supplying gold on lower rates in Bengaluru.</p>.<p>A vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and B R Gavai issued notice to the Karnataka government on a plea made by Preethi Sunil, a resident of Rajarajeshwari Nagar.</p>.<p>After conducting virtual hearing, the court protected the petitioner as an interim measure and sought a response from the state government within four weeks on her special leave petition filed against March 20, 2020 order by the High Court dismissing her plea for anticipatory bail.</p>.<p>The petitioner, her husband Sunil Thakker and others were accused of duping a complainants of Rs 47 crore for supplying gold at cheap rates. Instead of repaying the money, they issued cheques and entered into some agreements which were not honoured. She faced another case related to cheating a different person of Rs 2.24 crore in a similar fashion.</p>.<p>In her plea, she said she was ready to cooperate with the investigation. She also asserted that the failure to repay was due to business-related reasons and there was no intention to cheat the complainant.</p>
