IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6909 of 2008(V) ------------------------- CC.879/2007 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.D.SHAJI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. DHARMADAS, PALLIYIL HOUSE, PADIYAM, KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.6909 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the victim in a road traffic accident. A vehicle in which he was travelling allegedly hit against another vehicle which was parked on the road. The crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. In the final report, allegations are raised under Sections 279, 337 and 388 I.P.C as also under the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In such final report allegations are raised only against the driver of the car. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the final report. What is his grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigators have not made any allegations against the driver/owner of the other vehicle which according to the petitioner was parked improperly on the road. This is the alleged grievance. 2. I shall carefully avoid any detailed expression of opinion on merits lest it may foreclose the options which the petitioner has. If the petitioner has a grievance that the investigation is not conducted properly and the final report is not W.P(C).No.6909 of 2008 2 justified, the petitioner can certainly move the learned Magistrate not to accept the final report or to conduct a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In the alternative if the petitioner feels that any such offfence has been committed by the driver/owner of the other vehicle, he can initiate proceedings by filing a private complaint against such individual. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the jurisdiction under Article 226 can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter any other rights which the petitioner has in law to complain against the alleged inadequacy in the final report. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-