IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5215 of 2008(U) ------------------------- CRIME NO. 163/07 OF RAJAKKAD POLICE STATION CMP.2578/2007 of J.M.F.C.,ADIMALI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.G. SURESH KUMAR, KOOTHANADIYIL HOUSE BAISON VALLEY VILLAGE UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERALA OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DIST. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAKKAD POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C).No. 5215 of 2008 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation has been conducted into Crime No.163 of 2007 of Rajakkad Police Station, which in turn is registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. It is trite after the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 AIR SCW 309) that a person like the petitioner, who is dissatisfied with the quality of investigation conducted in a crime, must first approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and seek appropriate directions to ensure a proper investigation of the crime. The petitioner has admittedly not done the same. The decision in Sakiri Vasu is authority for the proposition that such applications under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be encouraged and the parties must be W.P(C).No. 5215 of 2008 2 left to take resort to the efficacious and alternate remedy, which is available under law. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for appropriate directions as explained in the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra). (R. BASANT) Judge tm