IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1770 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIPIN THANKAPPAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 31 YEARS, MAIMPILLIL HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKKOM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. 5. JYOTHI JOSE, D/O.JOSE, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, VENGATHANATHU HOUSE, MUTHALAKKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. R1 TO 4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 1770 of 2009 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 376 I.P.C. That crime has been registered at the instance of the 5th respondent, allegedly the former fiancee of the petitioner. She has alleged commission of the offence of rape by the petitioner. That crime, i.e. Ext.P2, is at present being investigated by the 4th respondent. The petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation at all. According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officers are not investigating the case properly. They are demanding unjust enrichment from the petitioner. In these circumstances he prays that there may be a direction to get proper investigation conducted into the crime by any police official other than the 4th respondent. 2. It is next contended that the petitioner has a grievance against the 5th respondent. He had launched a complaint before W.P.C.No. 1770 of 2009 2 the police officials. No F.I.R. has been registered and no investigation is being conducted. In these circumstances it is prayed that appropriate direction may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to the police officials/respondents to register a crime and take appropriate action. 3. I am afraid the prayers of the petitioner cannot be accepted. His grievance to put it in a legal jargon is that a complaint about the commission of an offence lodged by him before the police has not been acted upon and no crime has been registered. The second prayer is that a crime registered against him is not being investigated properly. 4. 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), a person with such a grievance cannot ordinarily come to this Court directly and claim invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy available under Section W.P.C.No. 1770 of 2009 3 156(3) Cr.P.C. The decision in Sakiri Vasu has been followed by this Court in John Peruvanthanam v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 462) also. Of course, in an exceptional case the ordinary rule in Sakiri Vasu can be held not to apply. But for that sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to decipher any such exceptional reasons as to take the case out of the sweep of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu. The petitioner must make his grievance of non- registration of an F.I.R. on the basis of his complaint and of inadequate investigation into Crime No. 1346 of 2008 of Thodupuzha police station before the Magistrate concerned, who must consider such grievance and issue appropriate direction in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu. If the petitioner's grievance is not adequately remedied by such orders of the Magistrate, needless to say, the petitioner's option to come to this court to seek appropriate direction shall remain. 5. This Writ Petition is dismissed. 6. Issue copy today itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm W.P.C.No. 1770 of 2009 4