IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7891 of 2009(Q) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- CYRIL MAR BESELLOUS, METROPOLITAN, MALABAR INDEPENDENT SYRIAN CHURCH, THOZHIYOOR, KERALA. BY ADV. MR.P.K.BEHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH (CBCID), TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 7891 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed to direct the third respondent, Crime Branch to take over the investigation of the case and the grievance is, in spite of a complaint no case is registered. Ext.P1 is a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayur with the averment that about 24,000 coconuts belonging to the Church had been stolen and therefore action is to be initiated. The grievance is that no action is taken on this complaint and therefore has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate directions. The matter has been recently considered by the learned Judge of this Court in John v. State of Kerala reported in 2008(1) KLT 462. In paragraph 26 the learned Judge has held that, “If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station, his first remedy is to approach the W.P.C 7891 OF 2009 -:2:- Superintendent of Police under S.154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in S.36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in S.36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under S.200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or S.482 petitions be entertained when there are so may alternative remedies? The learned Judge concluded, “Therefore, leaving the petitioner to his remedies u/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. and 156(3) Cr.P.C. and S.190 r/w S.200 Cr.P.C. this writ petition is dismissed.” So decisions on the points have all force in this case as well and therefore with the same observations this writ petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-