IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6637 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GIGI MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, CHIRAPPURATH HOUSE, PAINGATTOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) SRI. A.K.SREEKANTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, ALUVA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.6637 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation has been conducted into Crimes 31 of 2008 and 32 of 2008 of the Pothanikad Police Station. They are in the nature of a case and a counter case. The petitioner is the accused in one of them and the victim in the other. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue directions to ensure a fair, proper and efficient investigation. 2. In the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309], the petitioner has to explain why the petitioner has come directly to this Court without and before approaching the learned Magistrate for issue of directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to ensure that proper investigation is conducted. No explanation whatsoever is offered except that no proper investigation has been conducted into either of the two crimes. 3. The decision in Sakiri Vasu [2008 AIR SCW 309] is authority for the proposition that persons aggrieved by the conduct of inadequate, insufficient and improper investigation of any crime need not and should not be encouraged to come to this W.P(C).No.6637 of 2008 2 Court with applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held clearly that the Magistrates have sufficient power and jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to issue appropriate directions from time to time. The Magistrates can monitor, supervision and even interfere with the investigation if a proper investigation is not conducted, it is clearly held in the said decision. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra). The petitioner has not chosen to take resort to the said effective alternative remedy. The petitioner's application under Article 226 cannot, in these circumstances, be entertained and admitted. This petition hence fails. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for issue of appropriate directions to ensure the conduct of a proper investigation in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-