IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24715 of 2008(P) -------------------------- CRIME NO.241/2008 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------ T.S. POCKER, S/O. SAIDALAVI, THONIPARAMBIL HOUSE, M.K. NAGAR, KULAPPULLY, VIA SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.24715 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered at the Shornur police station as crime No.241/2008 for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 I.P.C. The crime was registered on 26/5/2008. Two of the accused persons had approached the learned Sessions Judge and they were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted into crime No.241/2008. In these circumstances, it is prayed that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be invoked to entrust the investigation to the Crime Branch police. 2. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] it is trite that a person like the petitioner herein who claims to be aggrieved by the quality of investigation conducted in a crime by the investigating officer cannot rush to this court with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C without and before exhausting the remedy available to him under Section 156 (3) cr.P.C. It is now settled beyond controversy that such an W.P.C.No.24715/08 2 aggrieved person like the petitioner has the equally efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the learned Magistrate with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Without and before doing that the petitioner cannot be permitted to rush to this court with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the petitioner must be left to seek his remedy from the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling circumstances exist in this case which can justify deviation from the normal rule adumbrated 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] and issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioner's right to move the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate directions regarding investigation shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.24715/08 3 W.P.C.No.24715/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007