IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1892 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- G. SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS KIZHAKKU THOTTASSERY HOUSE KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA P.O., ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, 3. RAGHUNATHAN NAIR, MANGALATHU VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA P.O. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 1892 of 2009 A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a 74 year old person and he has some disputes with certain neighbours of his. He has a grievance that such neighbours had committed culpable overt acts/crimes against him. The petitioner gave expression to this grievance - of the neighbours committing offences against him - in a complaint/letter which he addressed to the Director General of Police. Ext.P1 is the copy of that complaint. According to the petitioner, no action has been taken on Ext.P1 and the petitioner is consequently aggrieved by the conduct of the first respondent. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to the police to register a crime on the basis of Ext.P1 and to conduct a proper investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how this writ petition is maintainable in the light of the decisions in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724) W.P.C.No. 1892 of 2009 2 (SC), as followed by this Court in John v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 462). 3. It is by now trite that a person with a grievance like that of the petitioner herein - that the police is not promptly registering a crime and has not conducted an investigation into such crime - cannot come directly to this court with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. without and before exhausting the equally efficacious remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has done precisely that. No explanation is offered as to why the petitioner did not choose to go before the Magistrate and seek relief under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It must, in these circumstances, be held that this writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioner having not already exhausted the equally efficacious alternative remedy which is available to the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek relief from the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if such a grievance is raised before W.P.C.No. 1892 of 2009 3 the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate must consider the same in the light of the decisions referred above as also the decision in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945) and pass appropriate orders. (R. BASANT) Judge tm