IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 26237 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RENISH,AGED 28,S/O.DANIEL, CHEMPAKASSERY,KANNAMAVU,CHENGALLOOR,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OLLUR. 2. REPAI,S/O.DEVASSY,KONIKARA,OLLUR. 3. SANKARAN,PERUVANKULANGARA,OLLUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 26237 of 2007-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.538/2007 of Ollur Police Station. Petitioner claims to be the power of attorney holder of his father-in-law and mother-in-law. His grievance is that certain trees standing in the property belonging to his in-laws were unauthorisedly cut and removed. He raised complaints. But the police did not take any action. He was compelled to approach superior police officials and ultimately Crime No.538/2007 was registered. Petitioner came to this Court with this writ petition with a grievance that no proper investigation is being conducted by the Investigating Officer. 2. While this writ petition was pending before this Court, it is now admitted that the final report has already been filed. Notice has been given to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner now to go before the learned Magistrate and raise objections against the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The decision in Sakiri Vasu v.State of U.P [2008 AIR SCWA 309] makes it clear that the Magistrate has a real and effective role to perform and function, to discharge and to ensure that W.P.(C) No.26237/2007-W 2 proper investigation is conducted. The powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, it has been held in that decision, are wide enough to clothe the Magistrate with requisite legal authority to ensure that proper investigation is conducted. Depending upon the stage of the proceedings, Magistrate can direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on any specific aspects after issuing specific directions. In the alternative, at later stages, directions can be issued for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. At any rate, it is not necessary for this Court, at this stage, to entertain the grievance of the petitioner that no proper investigation has been conducted. The Supreme Court has frowned upon the attempts made to rush to this Court with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution of India by persons whose grievance about inadequate investigation can be remedied by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grossly unacceptable reasons have been given to justify the refer report submitted. Counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer, the Circle Inspector of Police has made mis-statements W.P.(C) No.26237/2007-W 3 and incorrect statements with deliberate intention in this proceedings. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to further probe into the grievances raised. Petitioner can raise all such grievances before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) ms