ORDER : B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, J. A company and one of its erstwhile directors have repeatedly approached this Court as against the actions of the Bangalore City Police, and these two petitions also fall in this category. The petition in W.P.No.21138/2021 is by the erstwhile Director, and the petition in W.P.No.2318/2023 is by the Company. The petitioners seek directions to the police not to harass the erstwhile director by calling him repeatedly under the guise of an investigation. In fact, this erstwhile Director has sought for directions to the jurisdictional police to consider his representation dated 13.10.2021 by a speaking order referring to this Court's order in W.P.No.1906/2018 [GM-POLICE], and for direction to the police to stop arraigning him as an accused in the cases against the Company. 2. This Court, on 27.01.2022, in the petition by the erstwhile Director, has directed the police not to precipitate any action against him in the pending cases, and thereafter there have been a series of orders in the different petitions both at the instance of this erstwhile Director and the Company quashing certain FIRs. The details, [Ms. Ankita Patil, who appears for the "erstwhile Director", has placed on record these copies.] of the FIR/crime numbers, the writ petitions and the orders of this Court are as follows. 3. This Court in each of the afore orders has observed that Form in DIR-11 issued by the Registrar of Companies demonstrates that this person has ceased to be a Director of the Company with effect from 01.01.2016 and the alleged incident of purchase of stolen jewelry by the Company is after this person has ceased to be a Director. This Court has also opined that the criminal proceedings cannot be sustained in the absence of corroborative material to demonstrate this person's complicity. 4. Ms. Ankitha Patil, the learned counsel for the erstwhile Director, submits that the cause for the present petition is because the police, with no material, call upon him to explain transactions that are after he has tendered resignation and that the police cannot, merely because he once was associated as a Director, subject him to investigation. Ms.Heena S.A., the learned counsel for the Company, submits that this petitioner has approached this Court essentially because the prosecution of its erstwhile Director reflects on the Company. Mr. Ms.Heena S.A., the learned counsel for the Company, submits that this petitioner has approached this Court essentially because the prosecution of its erstwhile Director reflects on the Company. Mr. V. Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the police have begun investigation upon receipt of the first information about receipt of stolen jewelry and as part of such investigation the erstwhile Director is called upon to share information and that this would be within the ambit of investigation and cannot be called persecution. 5. The materials brought on record demonstrate that in a series of complaints filed this Court has intervened because the erstwhile Director has ceased to be associated with the Company upon his resignation being accepted with effect from 01.01.2016; that the "erstwhile Director" cannot be subjected to investigation only because he was once associated with the Company; that there is no corroborative material to connect him with the alleged offence. The import of these must be duly considered as also the trite position in law that the Court will not issue directions that would impale an investigation permissible in law when there is any information about the commission of the offence. 6. The investigating authorities must investigate the commission of an offence, and that investigation must be to find out whether a person is a perpetrator or a conspirator or an abettor or is otherwise associated with the commission that makes such person complicit and therefore culpable. An Investigating Officer, based on the information received, must examine these aspects. This Court therefore opines that there cannot be blanket directions to the respondents [the police] not to harass the erstwhile Director or to pass a speaking order on a particular representation de-horse the investigation that must be when there is information about commission of an offence. 7. This Court further opines that there cannot be a direction to the police not to array this erstwhile Director as an accused when a complaint is filed against the Company. However, this Court must observe that the respondent must be diligent and not summon the erstwhile Director unless there is prima facie material to establish the erstwhile Director’s culpability, but otherwise the police must investigate as first observed every information about the commission and his association with the commission. The Company’s petition must be rejected because there cannot be a cause of action for it. It is ordered accordingly. The Company’s petition must be rejected because there cannot be a cause of action for it. It is ordered accordingly. In the light of the afore: ORDER [a] The petition by the erstwhile Director in the petition in W.P.No.21138/2021 stands disposed of subject to the above observations. [b] The petition in W.P.No.2318/2023 is rejected .