IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1672 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJU.N ABRAHAM, AGED 52, S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, NEDIYATHU HOUSE, MEMBARA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN SRI.LITHIN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 4. BIJO ALEXANDER, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPOONITHURA. 5. P.S. SHIJU, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPOONITHURA. By GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.1672 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has come to this court with this petition with the grievance that no effective action has been taken on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint submitted by him before the City Police Commissioner, Kochi. In that complaint, he had alleged that culpable criminal acts have been committed by respondents 4 and 5, the Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police of Hill Palace Police Station and also other police constables. The petitioner allegedly submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the City Police Commissioner. He could not meet the City Police Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, who received it, wanted the petitioner to produce the same before the ACP, Thrikkakkara. According to the petitioner, he could not produce the complaint before the ACP, Thrikkakkara. According to the petitioner, the original of Ext.P1 has been forwarded to the City Police Commissioner. He has not taken any action thereon and in these circumstances the petitioner has come to this court for issue of proper directions for the proper conduct of an investigation into the grievance W.P.C.No.1672/09 2 raised by him in Ext.P1. I am afraid, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945], person with a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein cannot directly approach this court with application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C without and before exhausting his equally efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Such applications by persons airing such grievance cannot be entertained. 2. It is for the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and raise his grievance about the non registration of the F.I.R and/or the inadequate investigation. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must consider the application on merits and take appropriate decision and issue directions under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. If the grievance of the petitioner remains without redressal even after the learned Magistrate passes orders in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the petitioner's option to come to this court again shall remain unfettered. W.P.C.No.1672/09 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the complaint is about the culpable conduct of the Sub Inspector of Police and Circle Inspector of Police at the Hill Palace police station, the petitioner apprehends that no proper investigation is likely to be conducted. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C can only direct registration of the crime at the local police station and cannot specify the officer who has to conduct the investigation. 4. I find substance in that grievance. Needless to say, when an F.I.R registered on a reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C raises allegations against the S.I and C.I of the local police station, such officers are duty bound to place such F.I.R before an official superior to them for the proper and effective conduct of investigation. I have no reason to assume that such reasonable and fair course will not be followed by the police officials. If they do not do so, the petitioner can certainly complain to the learned Magistrate and later to this court. 5. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.1672/09 4 W.P.C.No.1672/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007