THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22954 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the failure of the third respondent in investigating into Crime No.376 of 2011 though it was registered on 01.08.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, party-in-person, seeks a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the third respondent for showing undue favour to the unofficial respondents who are accused in the said crime. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is asserted that the petitioner had purchased a plot admeasuring 208 Square Yards by registered sale deed dated 25.07.2011; his vendor had delivered vacant peaceful possession to him; on 28.07.2011, he was called by the third respondent to the police station stating that the fourth respondent had lodged a complaint against him, his vendor and another on the same day; and a case in Crime No.368 of 2011 was registered for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the petitioner’s grievance that, despite his presenting all documents before the third respondent to show that he was the owner and in possession of the land in question, the third respondent had sided with respondents 4 to 9 though they had fabricated documents to show that they were the owners of the plot in question. His grievance is that, while the third respondent was proceeding to investigate into Crime No.368 of 2011 filed against the petitioner by the fourth respondent, the investigation process with regards the complaint lodged by the petitioner in Crime No.376 of 2011 has not even commenced till date. The petitioner would assert that his complaints in this regard to respondents 1 and 2 did not improve matters, necessitating his having to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), has the power not only to direct registration of an offence, but also to direct investigation and, if need be, to monitor the investigation if any carried on. The petitioner’s grievance regarding failure of the third respondent to investigate into his complaint can as well be addressed by invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Leaving it open to the petitioner to do so, the Writ Petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J August 16, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22954 OF 2011 August 16, 2011 MD [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409