IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 38108 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHAMY,S/O.KUPPAN,AGED 58,CHIRAKKODE HARIJAN COLONY,ATHIPOTTA,THARUR II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HOME DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR,PALAKKAD. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD. 6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD. 7. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,HEAD QUARTERS,NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.38108 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the father of a person, aged about 27 years, by name Krishnankutty. He was found missing and Crime 34 of 2007 was registered on 03.09.07 under the caption `man missing'. A couple of days' later, his body was found hanging in a tree nearby. Investigation conducted. Investigators came to the conclusion that offence under Section 306 I.P.C has been committed. Report to that effect was filed. Investigation is in progress. Final report is not being filed yet. 2. The petitioner claims to be dissatisfied with the investigation in the case. What is the grievance ? According to the petitioner, a proper investigation has not been conducted. If a proper investigation were conducted, the Investigating Officer could have satisfied and convinced that it was really a case of murder. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that directions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued to the investigator to conduct a proper investigation or to hand over the investigation to more competent hands. W.P(C).No.38108 of 2007 2 3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309], It is for the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said decision is authority for the proposition that the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C are wide in its sweep to include the issue of directions to ensure the conduct of a proper and efficient investigation. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in that decision have very categorically stated that such aggrieved persons cannot be encouraged to come to this Court with grievance about the inadequate and insufficient investigations. Of course in an exceptional and extraordinary case such powers are available with this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies for the aggrieved persons. But I am not satisfied that any such exceptional or extraordinary reasons exist in this case which can persuade me to entertain this petition and issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. It is for the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek any such directions if he is so advised. Needless to say that after the filing of the final report also, the W.P(C).No.38108 of 2007 3 petitioner is also entitled to raise her objection if any against the acceptance of the final report before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate further directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and/or under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, later. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-