IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3231 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 18/2008 OF KALIKAVU POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- THOTTIKALAVAN MOOSA HAJI, S/O. HAMSA HAJI, THOTTIKALAVAN HOUSE, VELLAYUR.P.O, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIKAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, MALAPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3231 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. Crime was registered as early as on 29.3.2008. The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted by the police on the crime registered at his instance. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the police to ensure the conduct of a proper, efficient and effective investigation. 2. I am afraid the prayer of the petitioner is premature. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC), it is well settled that a person with such a grievance as the one raised by the petitioner herein in this petition cannot rush to this Court with petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is for such person with such grievance to move the learned Magistrate Crl.M.C.No. 3231 of 2008 2 and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner who has such an efficacious alternative remedy has not shown any satisfactory reasons to justify the invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ignoring the mandate of Sakiri vasu (supra). I do not find any such exceptional reasons in this case. 3. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if so moved, the learned Magistrate must pass appropriate orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the light of the dictum in Sakiri vasu (supra). 4. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm