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. 6912 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LIPEESH, S/O.THANKACHAN, VALIYAPARAMBU, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, PERINGALA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.DEVADANAM SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 3. AJAYAN J., KANJIRAM NILKKUM KUNNIL VEEDU, AREEKARA P.O., MULAKKUZHA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.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.6912 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to this Court to invoke its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had abducted his wife. The petitioner had lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police and the same has been acknowledged under Ext.P1. The petitioner came to this Court with a petition to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Ext.P2 direction was issued. That proceedings has now been closed. After the wife was traced and produced before the learned Magistrate, she is now with her parents, it is submitted. As no action has been taken on the complaint filed by him against the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 complaint before the 1st respondent. No action is seen taken on that complaint also. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come before this Court. 2. To summarise, the grievance of the petitioner is that no crime has been registered at his instance and no investigation whatsoever has been conducted into the grievance raised by him. 3. I am of opinion that the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] squarely answers the question W.P(C).No.6912 of 2008 2 raised. A person whose grievance has not been registered as an F.I.R or a person who has a grievance that the crime committed against him has not been properly investigated now has the avenue under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to complain before the learned Magistrate. The grievance of such a person before he approaches the learned Magistrate cannot ordinarily be encouraged and entertained by this Court. Sakiri Vasu is authority for the proposition that the Magistrate has the reservoir of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to issue appropriate directions. 4. The petitioner who has an effective alternative remedy has without and before exhausting the same come before this Court with this Writ Petition. Ordinarily and normally the writ petition is not to be encouraged and entertained under such circumstances. I find no extraordinary circumstances to deviate from the normal rule in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. This Writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the observation that the avenues described in Sakiri Vasu shall continue to be available to the petitioner to air his grievance notwithstanding the fact that this writ petition has been dismissed by this Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- W.P(C).No.6912 of 2008 3