IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1962 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.PAREED, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.HASSANKUTTY, RESIDING AT VETTIYOTTUMMAL HOUSE, KOOTHALIK P.O., PERAMBRA VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,(SOUTH) KOZHIKODE. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASBA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 5. IMBICHY ALI NADAKKAL, S/O.AMMED HAJI, ARIKULAM AMSOM, VAKAMOLY DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 6. P.K.SHYLAJ, S/O.ABDU SALAM, PALERI AMSOM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 7. P.T.ABDULLA, S/O.UNNIMOYAN, PANNIKOTT THODI, MANASSERY AMSOM, CHENNAMANGALUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. WP(C).No. 1962 of 2008(H) 8. THE CENTRAL BURUEA INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 1962 of 2008-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is the de facto complainant in an alleged crime registered inter alia under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. More than 5 kg of gold belonging to the petitioner was allegedly taken away using force. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no proper action was taken by the local police officials initially. This obliged him to make a complaint before the superior officer. Accordingly, a crime has been registered later as Crime No.380/2007 of Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, even though the crime has been registered, no proper investigation is being conducted. Aggrieved by such inadequate and insufficient investigation, petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that appropriate directions may be issued to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. Petitioner makes a prayer that the investigation may be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the eight respondent herein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v.State of U.P [2008 AIR SCWA 309] this Court can be persuaded to W.P.(C) No.1962/2008-H 2 invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said decision is authority for the proposition that the petitioner, if he is dissatisfied with the investigation conducted must approach the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the reservoir powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is available with the Magistrate to issue appropriate directions to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. That being so the petitioner's grievance raised at the first instance before this Court cannot obviously be entertained. Petitioner has to be relegated to the alternative remedy which he has to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. It is true that there is a prayer that the C.B.I may be directed to conduct the investigation. That prayer, obviously, the Magistrate cannot grant. But such a prayer cannot be made in every case. Only if the court is satisfied that the ordinary methods available to an aggrieved person to get a proper investigation conducted have failed. Then alone can this Court choose to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the W.P.(C) No.1962/2008-H 3 Constitution of India in an exceptional case to direct investigation by the C.B.I. Even to invoke such powers this Court has to be satisfied that the efficacious alternative remedies available have been exhausted by the petitioner. Petitioner has not done the same. This writ petition cannot in these circumstances be entertained. The same deserves to be dismissed. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the right of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for appropriate relief as explained in Sakiri Vasu. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) ms