IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22365 of 2007(K) -------------------------- CC.23/2005 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SALEENA BEEVI, PARAYANTHAYYATHU VEEDU, PERUMANTHAZHA MURI, CLAPPANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OACHIRA POLICE STATION, OACHIRA. 3. SULEKHA BEEVI, SIRAJ MANZIL, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. NOORJAHAN, DO. DO. 5. SIRAJUDEEN, DO. DO. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R3 TO 5 SRI.K.JAGADEESH FOR R3 TO 5 SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22365 of 2007 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Writ petitioner is married to one Kamarudheen. Respondents 3 to 5 are the in-laws of the petitioner. Alleging offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the Code’) said to have been committed by Kamarudheen, another brother of his and respondents 3 to 5, writ petitioner gave Ext.P1 statement to the second respondent on 8.7.2004. A case was registered as Crime No.193 of 2004 for offence punishable under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Code. Investigation followed and it culminated in Ext.P2, final report dated 11.8.2004 but only implicating Kamarudheen and one of his brothers. Writ petitioner states that the second respondent had been properly investigating the case at a time when investigation was monitored by Habeeb Rahman Rawther, then Dy.S.P. Karunagappally but after the transfer of that officer, there was no proper investigation and ultimately, respondents 3 to 5 were excluded from the array of accused. Writ petitioner therefore, seeks a direction to the second respondent to conduct proper investigation. 2. Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that there is no substance in the allegations made against respondents 3 to 5 and that attempt was made even to rope in the fourth respondent who is married and staying WP(C) No.22365/2007 2 abroad. It is also contended by counsel for respondents 3 to 5 that there are other remedies available to the writ petitioner to redress her grievance if any rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or even under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance is placed on the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1) KLT 724) and in particular, the observations made in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment. 3. According to the writ petitioner, there are sufficient materials in the case including Exts.P3 to P5, statement of witnesses questioned by second respondent which would indicate involvement of respondents 3 to 5 also in the alleged offence. Assuming so, notwithstanding that respondents 3 to 5 have been excluded from array of accused, it is open to the learned magistrate to consider whether there are sufficient materials before him to proceed against respondents 3 to 5 as well. It is also open to the writ petitioner to request the learned magistrate to direct further investigation if such a course is found necessary and the learned magistrate found such a course necessary. There are also other alternatives open to the writ petitioner. There is no reason to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. That is exactly what the Hon'ble Supreme Court also pointed out in the decision the referred by counsel for respondents 3 to 5. 4. It is certainly within the power of learned magistrate to look into the materials submitted before him by the second respondent along with the final WP(C) No.22365/2007 3 report. There is no reason to think that the magistrate will not exercise his powers in that matter. In the circumstances stated above, exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required and hence, this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks