IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9575 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.M.MUHAMMEDALI, FORMER STATE PRESIDENT OF I.M.A. "SHAMY'S ", POST OFFICE MAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM CITY 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CONTROL ROOM, TRIVANDRUM. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI. GIKKU JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 9575 OF 2008 M ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance about inadequate and insufficient conduct of further investigation as per Ext.P1 order passed by the Magistrate. 2. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in crime 5/2003 of Cantonment police station, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegations are raised in that crime of commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under sections 468 and 471 IPC. Complaining that there was no proper investigation, the petitioner had come to this Court earlier and by order dated 18.7.06 in WPC.32375/05 the investigating officer was directed to file final report within a period of two months. 3. The final report was thereafter filed. It was a negative refer report. The petitioner, the de facto complainant was not satisfied with the said final report. He appeared WPC.9575/08 : 2 : before the learned Magistrate and raised objections against the refer report. The learned Magistrate by Ext.P1 order accepted the objections raised, did not accept the negative final report and forwarded the same for conduct of detailed investigation again to the investigating officer. That order Ext.P1 was passed on 20.4.2007. 4. The petitioner has now come again to this Court with the present grievance. According to him, the investigating officer is not conducting a proper further investigation as directed in Ext.P1 order. The final report is not filed yet. This in short is the grievance of the petitioner. 5. If the petitioner has a grievance about the inadequate, improper and inefficient conduct of investigation or further investigation, it is now trite after the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] that the petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate and cannot, in the absence of exceptional and compelling reasons come to this Court with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 COI. The Magistrate has jurisdiction under section WPC.9575/08 : 3 : 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure the conduct of a proper and efficient investigation. The petitioner must hence go before the learned Magistrate and raise his grievance of inadequate/inefficient conduct of the investigation or the failure of the investigating officer to file a final report. 6. I need only mention that it is the duty of the investigating officer to expeditiously complete the investigation and it is for the learned Magistrate to issue proper directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as explained in the decision in Sakiri Vasu which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi Vs. S.I. of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945]. 7. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. I make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and seek appropriate directions. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks