IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8325 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KARUNANILAYAM, MANDIKUNNU, MURINGOOR.P.O. 680 316, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, MARY MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(CRIMES), POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTI POLICE STATION, KORATTI-680 308. 6. MANOJ, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KOZHIKADAN, ANNANADU, TRIVENU JUNCTION, MURINGOOR P.O.680 316, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.8325 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner in this case is the defacto complainant in Crime 93 of 2007 of Koratty Police Station. That crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 406, 420 and 468 I.P.C. The said crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The crime was registered as early as on 01.03.07. 2. The short grievance of the petitioner now is that no proper investigation is being conducted into the said crime even though a period of one year has elapsed from the registration of the crime. The petitioner feels that a proper investigation is not possible at the hands of the present Investigating Officer as he seems to lack competence and expertise to conduct such investigation. 3. The learned counsel was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 W.P(C).No.8325 of 2008 2 AIR SCW 309] this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner without and before approaching the learned Magistrate for issue of direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is maintainable. That decision is authority for the proposition that persons aggrieved by the inadequacy, insufficiency and inefficiency in the conduct of the investigation cannot be permitted ordinarily to rush to this Court with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such persons, it is now trite, as declared in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309], must approach the Magistrate concerned with appropriate applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When such applications are made, the Magistrate now has the duty to consider the grievance of the person concerned and pass appropriate directions to ensure that a fair, proper and efficient investigation is conducted by the Investigating Officer. Such powers must certainly in an appropriate case extend to issue of directions under Section 36 Cr.P.C to superior officers of the police also. 4. In any view of the matter, this petition by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without and before exhausting his efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) W.P(C).No.8325 of 2008 3 Cr.P.C cannot obviously be entertained. The petitioner must first approach the learned Magistrate with an appropriate prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the learned Magistrate must consider such application and issue appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as explained in Sakiri Vasu. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-