IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3592 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.464/08 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------- UMMER, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, MANAKKATTEMURIYIL, KAITHAKKADUKARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA (RURAL). 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3592 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 ORDER The grievance of the petitioner, the injured in a crime registered under Section 326 I.P.C, is that, since the accused person wields considerable amount of influence with the police in his capacity as a supporter of the ruling political party, no effective action is being taken to investigate into the crime. 2. Called upon to explain how the petitioner is entitled to come directly before this Court in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], without and before approaching the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistracy is not conversant with the procedure that is to be followed when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is filed. They are not very clear about the nature of the direction that can be issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is hence that the petitioner has come before this Court, it is urged. Crl.M.C. No.3592 of 2008 2 3. I find no merit in this contention. The decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (supra) as followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police (supra) clearly shows that effective intervention can be made by the Magistrates in the interests of justice to ensure the proper conduct of an investigation. It is not necessary for this Court in a general manner to prescribe the nature of the orders that can be passed and that cannot be passed. It is for the Magistrates in the facts of each case to issue appropriate directions subject to the broad rider that the purpose of that direction must be to secure the interests of justice and ensure a proper and fair investigation. The Magistrate is not to adorn the mantle of an investigator, but he is certainly entitled as a judicial functionary to ensure that there is proper conduct of investigation. If there be no proper conduct of investigation, the Magistrate can supervise, monitor or even interfere with the investigation as is evident from the two decisions referred above. The alleged confusion prevailing in the mind of the Magistracy cannot certainly be a ground to enable the petitioner to come to this Court directly with such a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without and before approaching the learned Crl.M.C. No.3592 of 2008 3 Magistrate contrary to the mandate of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. 4. With the above observations this Crl.M.C is dismissed. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-