IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 530 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.392/08 OF THE CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- S.PADMAKSHAN, S/O.SANKARAN, THRIVENIYIL HOUSE, THURUTHIMEL, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SMT.DIVYA C BALAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. C.I. OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY P.P. SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.530 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.409 IPC. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of such reference, a crime has been registered. The petitioner laments that though the crime has been registered, no worthwhile investigation has been conducted thereafter by the police. Even the essential witnesses have not been contacted or questioned. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer to ensure the conduct of a proper Crl.M.C. No.530 of 2009 -: 2 :- investigation. 2. I am afraid, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court now. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945) persons with grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein cannot be permitted ordinarily to come before this Court with petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution or Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Such persons must exhaust the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to them under Sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C. They must approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not done the same. I find no reason to reckon the instant case as one which can be treated as an exception to the general rule propounded in Sakiri Vasu. The petitioner must hence be relegated to approach the learned Magistrate with appropriate application under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the above specific observations. Needless to say, if the petitioner approaches the learned Magistrate with an application under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate will have to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits in the light of Crl.M.C. No.530 of 2009 -: 3 :- the two decisions referred above. Needless again to say that if the petitioner's grievance remains without remedy even after such an order, the option of the petitioner to come to this Court again shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. 4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/