IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9183 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.J.MATHEWS,NEDUMCHIRA THOTTATHIL KAITHAKUZHY, ADICHANALLOOR P.O. KOLLAM. 2. ELSY MATHEWS W/O. P.J.MATHEWS DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.JAMES JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM. 3. S.I.OF POLICE CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. DR.RACHEL THOMAS NEDUMCHIRA KARIMPUPANAYIL, ADICHANALLOOR P.O. KOLLAM. 5. ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH ADICHANALLOOR P.O. KOLLAM. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.9183 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the accused persons in crime No.329/07 of Chathannoor police station registered under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 I.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. 2. The petitioners, who are accused, have come to this court with a short prayer that the investigating officer may be directed to file the final report expeditiously. That is the short prayer made in this writ petition. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945] it is trite that any person aggrieved by an improper, inadequate or insufficient investigation can approach the learned Magistrate seeking directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempts to make a distinction by arguing that the petitioner is the accused and the accused does not have a right under Section 156(3) to approach the learned Magistrate complaining about any such inadequate investigation. W.P.C.No.9183/08 2 4. I find absolutely nothing in the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] which can persuade this court to read down the said dictum as one applicable only to the complainant and not to others. The language used and the rationale followed in that decision clearly show that the jurisdiction to issue directions to ensure a proper investigation stems from the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C which does not in any way limit the applicability to requests made at the instance of the complainant/aggrieved. I find absolutely no reason either from principle or precedents to limit operation of the dictum to the de facto complainant or to exclude the accused from the eligibility to claim relief under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 5. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that no directions need be issued in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner, if he finds it necessary, to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.9183/08 3 W.P.C.No.9183/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007