IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33530 of 2008(N) -------------------------- MC.27/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHI ASOKAN REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY, SREELATHA ASOKAN, AGED 48 YEARS RESIDING AT "PONKARUNA" THOTTAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.KUSUMAM SMT.N.NISHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUBU.S.BABU,HAVING ADDRESS AT POST BOX. NO.13396,DUBAI, PREVIOUSLY R/A U.A.E.UNIT NO.2&3, GEO STAR JADAN,PLOT NO.18,SECTOR 12, BOOSHY, NAAVI MUBAI,& PRESENTLY WORKING AS GEOLOGIST, GEOCHEM JEBEL ALI,DUBAI,U.A.E.R/B HIS MOTHER AND P/A SMT. SUDHA W/O.LATE SUDHEESH BABU, KUNNAMKULAM (H)TVM. 5. THE AMBASSADOR, INDIAN EMBASSY, U.A.E. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 33530 of 2008 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.86 of 2007 of Poonthura Police Station, Trivandrum. She has a pathetic tale to narrate. She has been deceived and defrauded by her husband, from whom she has now obtained an order of divorce. F.I.R. was registered against her husband alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. To cut a long story short, the grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted into that crime. 2. The grievance of the petitioner does arouse sympathy and compassion. I am not adverting to the detailed averments regarding the alleged injustice done to her. But the petitioner appears to have come to this Court without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to her to W.P.C.No. 33530 of 2008 2 approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. complaining about the inadequate investigation. 3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), a person with a grievance like the instant one raised by the petitioner cannot come to this Court directly and claim invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction unswe Article 226 of the Constitution. Such person must ordinarily exhaust the remedy available to her under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is trite. 4. This petition filed by the petitioner must in these circumstances fail for the short reason that the petitioner has not exhausted the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to her before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The fact that the petitioner is employed abroad now is no reason for this Court to treat this case as an exceptional one, to which the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (supra) need not be applied. The petitioner can, through her W.P.C.No. 33530 of 2008 3 counsel, apply to the learned Magistrate for issue of appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If the petitioner's grievance remains without redressal after the learned Magistrate passes orders, needless to say, the petitioner can challenge the same before this Court in appropriate proceedings. 5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. But I must note that whether with directions or without the directions of the learned Magistrate, it is incumbent on the Investigating Officer to ensure that a proper, efficient and efficacious investigation is conducted in Crime No.86 of 2007. 6. Copy of the judgment shall be communicated to the Investigating Officer through the learned Govt. Pleader. 7. Issue copy to the learned Prosecutor. (R. BASANT) Judge tm