IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32507 of 2008(T) -------------------------- CRIME NO. 628/08 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION PETITIONER: --------------- HAMZA AGED 20 YEARS S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, CHEMBAN HOUSE KUTTOR NORTH, KUNNUMPURAM VALIYAPEEDIKA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MURALI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY HOME SECRETARY GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DIST. KERALA STATE. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 32507 of 2008 T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner claims that he was only an employee in a mobile phone shop. According to him, he had only joined recently in that shop and he had no responsibility for any culpable activity that is going on there. Though a crime was registered, no proper investigation is conducted. The counsel prays that a proper investigation may be directed to be conducted. If such an investigation were conducted, the complicity of the owner of the shop, if any, and the innocence of the petitioner will be revealed and the petitioner will be saved of the unnecessary trauma of such criminal prosecution. It is prayed that invoking Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. appropriate directions may be issued to the Investigators. W.P.C.No. 32507 of 2008 2 2. I am afraid the prayer cannot be accepted in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945). The grievance of a person about inadequate, insufficient or inefficient investigation cannot for the first time be raised before this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. ordinarily. I find no exceptional reasons in this case. 3. The counsel submits that the fact that the petitioner is poor and he is a young boy may be reckoned as sufficient reason to justify deviation from the rule in Sakiri Vasu (supra). I am unable to agree. Sakiri Vasu, which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi is authority for the proposition that powers under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be invoked to redress a grievance like the instant one at the instance of a person, who could have moved the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction does not deserve to be invoked. W.P.C.No. 32507 of 2008 3 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if any such application is filed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate must consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the decisions referred above and take appropriate decision and if necessary issue appropriate directions. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with such directions, of course, the right of the petitioner to approach this Court shall remain unfettered. (R. BASANT) Judge tm