IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10442 of 2010(Q) ------------------------ CRIME NO. 184/2010 OF KONNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ............................................ PETITIONER: ----------------- ANANDAN, ANANDABHAVANAM, THAVALAPPARA, PERIJOTTAKKAL P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10442 of 2010 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of constitution of India by the defacto complainant in Crime No.184/2010 of Konni Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action on Exhibits P4 and P5 complaints submitted by the petitioner and to ensure that an impartial investigation is being conducted in the case. Exhibit P4 is a complaint submitted before District Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta and Exhibit P5, a similar complaint sent to Director General of Police. 2. As held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724), when the grievance of the petitioner is that investigation is not being properly conducted, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the concerned Magistrate as provided under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. WPC 10442/10 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in paragraph 10 of the statement, filed in the case by Sub Inspector of Police, Konni, it is stated that accused 1 and 2 were not apprehended as petitioner orally informed that there is likelihood of a settlement with the accused and there was no such attempt for settlement and in such circumstances, a direction is to be issued. 4. When petitioner has a case that there is no settlement, the Investigating Officer cannot protract the investigation, anticipating a settlement. Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate, this petition is disposed. 16th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv