IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 24976 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ USHA, W/O SADASIVAN, NALLETH HOUSE, CHANGANKULANGARA, CHERI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST. 4. KANNAN, MAYARMA COY, P.O.BOX NO.6396, DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES. 5. BHARATHAN, SREEDHAR NIVAS, PUNNATHALA CHERIYIL, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM WEST. 6. SARALA, W/O BHARATHAN, SREEDHAR NIVAS, PUNNATHALA CHERIYIL, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM WEST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.24976 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was the wife of the fourth respondent. Respondents 5 and 6 are the parents of the fourth respondent. The daughter of the petitioner committed suicide. The petitioner has a grievance that the offences under Section 304B I.P.C has been committed in respect of death of the deceased. On the complaint of the petitioner crime No.17/07 was registered at the Kollam West police station as early as on 25/1/2007. Investigation into that crime is in progress. The allegation under Section 304B I.P.C. has now been withdrawn. The allegations are now raised under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted by the investigating officer . 2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The investigating officer has filed a statement. In the statement it is submitted that all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation is being taken. That statement is filed on 4/9/2007. Even now the final report has not been filed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P.C.No.24976/07 2 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] this petition is maintainable. The said decision is authority for the proposition that a person aggrieved by the inadequacy, insufficiency and impropriety of the investigation conducted by the police, must first exhaust his remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A person, who has not made use of the avenues of redress available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, should not ordinarily be permitted to approach this court, it has been held in the said decision. The Supreme Court has adverted to the question in detail and has stated that the High Courts must not encourage such applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C and article 226 of the Constitution of India by such persons aggrieved by the quality of investigation and who have not approached the learned Magistrates seeking proper directions. It has clearly been held in that decision that the reservoir of powers available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is sufficient and effective for the learned Magistrate to ensure a proper and efficient investigation. 4. It is for the petitioner now to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) W.P.C.No.24976/07 3 Cr.P.C, if the final report has not already been filed. If the final report has been filed, the petitioner has the option in law to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise his objections against acceptance of the final report by the learned Magistrate. In any view of the matter, in the light of the Sakiri Vasu supra, I find no exceptional reasons which can persuade me to entertain this application at the instance of the petitioner who has not exhausted the alternative remedies available to her under law. 5. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate further directions from the learned Magistrate. Needless to say, if such an application is filed, it shall be the duty of the learned Magistrate to consider the request and pass appropriate orders in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu supra. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.24976/07 4 W.P.C.No.24976/07 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007