IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5091 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, S/O.GOVINDAN PILLAI KATTANAM MURI, KATTANAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. V.R.AJIKUMAR,S/O.VAMADEVAN KULATHINATE KIZHAKKETHIL, MARU-TEKKUM MURI, AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C).No. 5091 of 2008 F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 415 and 420 I.P.C. That crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. It is a negative final report (refer report) that has been filed by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has received notice of such final report. He has rushed to this Court with this writ petition with a prayer that directions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued to set aside the refer report and for the proper and efficient conduct of an investigation. 2. I am afraid the petitioner's application is premature. A person like the petitioner, who has a grievance that a negative final report has been filed without proper and efficient W.P(C).No. 5091 of 2008 2 investigation, cannot be permitted to approach this court seeking directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all his objections against the final report filed by the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate is competent to consider such objections and issue appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that this petition is premature and cannot be entertained. The position has been made crystal clear in the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 AIR SCW 309). This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm