IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 14754 of 2004(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SABAREESWARI, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 35, SABARI NIVAS, KASTURBA NAGAR, AAKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. KUNCHAN, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, KUNUKATTIL, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD. BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 14754 of 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Writ Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Criminal No.225/2003 of Hemambika Nagar Police station, Palakkad district. On the complaint preferred by writ petitioner on 21/11/2003, police registered a case according to the petitioner on 19/12/2003 and without conducting proper investigation submitted refer report which according to revision petitioner is dated 18/12/2003. Petitioner contents that itself would show that even before registering the case, refer report was prepared. Writ petitioner requested this court to issue direction to the first respondent to conduct further investigation of case. 3. If the writ petitioner is dissatisfied with the final report said to be submitted before the court concerned, he has remedies before that court. It is open to that court to issue directions to first respondent to further investigate the matter if the report is not satisfactory. It is also W.P(c) No.14754/2004 2 open to the writ petitioner to file private complaint in the court concerned if he wanted to pursue the matter further. There is no scope or necessity for this court to issue direction under Article 226 of the Constitution as prayed for since revision petitioner has other equally efficacious remedies. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm