IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1041 of 2009(Y) ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.602/08 OF FORT POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.VISHWANATHAN, AGED 38, S/O.NATARAJAN, TC 43/989, MURUGA BHAVAN, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. V.SATHEESAN, T.C.43/1064, ASHWATHY BHAVAN, S.N.NAGAR, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.1041 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the complainant at whose instance a crime has been registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 409 I.P.C. The crime was registered as early as on 14/10/2008. The short grievance of the petitioner is that a proper investigation is not being conducted by the investigating officer . 2. Why and how has the petitioner come to this court directly? Did he exhaust the equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C which is available to him as per the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945]? Admittedly, he has not done the same. I find no valid explanation forthcoming as to why the petitioner has not done the same. 3. It is trite after the decisions referred above that a person with an identical grievance must first approach the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate relief/directions under W.P.C.No.1041/08 2 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In an exceptional case, it is possible to hold that notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (Supra), this court can invoke its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But there is absolutely no indication to suggest that this is a fit case where on facts it must be held that the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) will not apply. I find no satisfactory explanation offered by the petitioner for not moving the learned Magistrate to seek relief/direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this writ petition does not deserve to be entertained. 4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the option of the petitioner to approach this court again, if his grievance remains unresolved even after approaching the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.1041/08 3 W.P.C.No.1041/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008