THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21579 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner-house wife has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court alleging abuse of office by the 4th respondent in forcibly taking a letter from her agreeing to handover custody of her son aged two and half years, to her husband twice a week. She would seek a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent, and to direct the 4th respondent to register the case against the 5th respondent in accordance with the complaint given by her. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent wherein he specifically denied ever asking the petitioner to give a letter, or to have ordered that she hand over custody of the child to her husband twice a week. The 4th respondent would specifically assert in his counter affidavit that he never obtained any letter from the petitioner nor did he ask her to hand over custody of her son twice a week to her husband. As held by the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the petitioner has an effective remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), whereunder the Magistrate concerned has not only the power to order registration of the offence, but also to direct the officer incharge of the concerned police station to hold proper investigation as also to monitor the same. In view of the categorical denial in the counter affidavit, I see no reason to dwell further into the matter. Suffice it to observe that, if the petitioner has any grievance with regards non- registration of her complaints, she has an effective remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:02.08.2011 MRKR [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409