IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21628 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KAILAS NATH @ KAILAS RAO, MAYUR APARTMENTS S2, KADAVANTHRA, S.A. ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.21628 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has a grievance that certain individuals had committed crimes and that they are threatening the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Superintendent of Police and Ext.P2 complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Police. No action has been taken. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police officials. He has hence rushed to this court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. What is the grievance of the petitioner? What order does he expect from this court? After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945] and John v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 462] it is trite that a person with a grievance that the police is guilty of inaction after receipt of a complaint of crime made to them, cannot come to this court directly with a prayer to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such person has an equally efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) W.P.C.No.21628/08 2 Cr.P.C, it is declared by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, I must say that this petition is misconceived. This court cannot grant the prayer that is sought. Of course, in an exceptional case if there are compelling reasons, the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can certainly be invoked. But in the facts and circumstances of this case I am unable to perceive any such exceptional reasons that can persuade this court to hold that this case does not come within the sweep of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (Supra). 3. This petition in these circumstances deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not in anyway fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate with an appropriate request under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and if such request is made, the learned Magistrate must certainly consider such request in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) and pass appropriate orders. sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr /true copy/ P.A to Judge W.P.C.No.21628/08 3 W.P.C.No.21628/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007