IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14902 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. C.J.JOY, S/O. JOSEPH, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O., DHANUGALA VILLAGE,COORG DISTRICT. 2. MINI SEBASTIAN, S/O,. SEBASTIAN THOMAS PORIYATH HOUSE, IRITTI P.O., PAYAMCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, TELLICHERRY TALUK. 3. TOMY.M.MATHEW, S/O. M.MATHEW, MANKUTHEL HOUSE,IRITTI P.O., PAYAMCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, TELLICHERRY TALUK. 4. MRS. BIJI JOSEPH, W/O. TOMY.M.MATHEW MANKUTHEL HOUSE, IRITTI P.O., PAYAMCHERRY DESOM, TELLICHERRY TALUK. 5. DENNIS JOY, S/O. C.J. JOY CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O., DHANUGALA VILLAGE,COORG DISTRICT. 6. MARY JAMES, W/O. JAMES KOLLARATHU HOUSE, MURINGODI DESOM, MELMURINGODI P.O., MANTHARA AMSOM, TELLICHERRY TALUK. 7. ALEAXANDER JAMES, S/O. JAMES KOLLARATHU HOUSE, MURINGODI DESOM, MELMURINGODI P.O., MANTHARA AMSOM, TELLICHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPDT. OF POLICE, WYNADU KALPETTA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANATHAVADY. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNELLY. 4. V.LAXMI, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O. LATE HARRY HAMPDEN TIPPETS AND (W/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN) 3/436, BRAHMAGIRI (A) ESTATE, THIRUNELLI AMSOM, DESOM, THOPETTY P.O. MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.14902 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the defacto complainants in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 323, 341 and 506 r/w 149 I.P.C. The 3rd petitioner had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police on 29.04.08 and the said complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Wayanad to the S.H.O, Thirunelli Police Station for necessary action. It is accordingly that the said crime has been registered on 30.04.08. Investigation is in progress. In the course of investigation an allegation under Section 395 I.P.C has been incorporated in supersession of the earlier allegations of offences made. Investigation is in progress. 2. The petitioners have now come to this Court with a short grievance that no proper investigation is being conducted into the said crime. They lament that the police is not taking any steps to recover the property and there is no effective and meaningful investigation conducted by the police. 3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this Court in W.P(C). No.14902 of 2008 2 Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], it is trite that persons like the petitioners, who have a grievance/complaint about the quality of investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer, cannot approach this Court directly with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for such persons to invoke the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. The learned Magistrates, it has been held, have the reservoir of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to issue appropriate directions to ensure proper investigation in all crimes. The petitioners admittedly have not approached the learned Magistrate with any request under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioners to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions now. In an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand such a course, this Court can of course invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not a case where this Court lacks jurisdictional competence but the rule in Sakiri Vasu is that ordinarily and normally without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, this W.P(C). No.14902 of 2008 3 Court will be reluctant to entertain applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to perceive any such exceptional or compelling reasons which can persuade this Court to issue any directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the Investigating Officer. No satisfactory reason has been shown as to why the petitioners have come before this Court without and before exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy as explained in the Sakiri Vasu. 4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition deserves to be and it is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to approach the learned Magistrate for issue of appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If they apply for the same, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider the same on merits and issue appropriate directions under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C as explained in Sakiri Vasu. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-