IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3596 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROHIT, S/O. P.R.PERUMAKUMARAN, PILANKAD HOUSE, MARUTHA ROAD P.O., PALAKKAD TLUK,PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL, KASBA POLICE STATION, PUTHUSSERY PALAKKAD. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASBA POLICE STATION, PUTHUSSERY PALAKKAD. 3. VENKITACHLAM, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, KESAVA FARMS, PARA ROAD, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.3596 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner had occasion to come to this Court earlier complaining that no crime was registered in accordance with law on the basis of the complaint lodged by him. He filed W.P(C) No.31162 of 2006. At that stage it was informed that crime has been registered. Accordingly by judgment dated 18.12.06, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, the said Writ Petition was dismissed with observations. 2. According to the petitioner though a crime has been registered on realising that this Court would intervene, thereafter no effective steps have been taken for the conduct of a proper investigation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inadequate investigation conducted. 3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], it is trite that a person, with a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein must ordinarily approach the learned W.P(C). No.3596 of 2009 2 Magistrate, who has the reservoir of powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to supervise, monitor and even interfere with an investigation if a proper investigation is not conducted. The petitioner has not approached the learned Magistrate. The decisions referred above stress the importance of the superior courts insisting that the petitioners must exhaust such equally efficacious alternative remedy before they rush to this Court with such applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I find absolutely no exceptional reasons to treat the case on hand as one which can be reckoned as on exception to the rule propounded in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. He must approach the learned Magistrate to seek appropriate directions. Needless to say, if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must consider the same on merits and issue directions if any necessary in the light of the decisions referred above. Needless further to say, if the petitioner is not satisfied with such directions issued by the learned Magistrate, his option to come to this Court again shall also remain unfettered. 4. This Writ Petition is hence dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-