IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25852 of 2008(C) -------------------------- CRIME NO. 498/08 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------ SOORYAKANTH, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O SADANANDAN RESIDING AT RADHA SADANAM, PUNNUKANNOOR, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION,. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 25852 of 2008 C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 304A I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has been named as the accused in the F.I.R. itself. He has not been arrested so far. 2. According to the petitioner, no proper investigation is being conducted by the police. According to him, he was only one of the passengers in the car. The deceased was driving the car at the relevant time. The deceased did not have a driving licence and to facilitate the claim being made against the Insurance Company, the petitioner, who has a valid driving licence, has been falsely arrayed as the accused. The police is obliging the deceased and others interested in him who want to claim amounts from the Insurance company. The petitioner submits that appropriate direction may be issued invoking the W.P.C.No. 25852 of 2008 2 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to the police to conduct a proper investigation. 3. I am afraid, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945) a person like the petitioner, who has a grievance about the investigation conducted, must approach the learned Magistrate ordinarily and seek direction. With such a grievance the petitioner cannot rush to this Court directly with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without and before choosing to request the Magistrate to invoke his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Of course in the facts of an exceptional case, where the interests of justice compellingly demand such a course, this Court may not be powerless and such jurisdiction may still be available to this court. But such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Ordinarily and normally the petitioner must be relegated to seek his remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. I am in these circumstances W.P.C.No. 25852 of 2008 3 satisfied that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Of course, if the petitioner approaches the learned Magistrate and his grievance remains without satisfaction by the action at the hands of the Magistrate, certainly his option to come to this Court shall remain. 4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm (R. BASANT) Judge tm