IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19020 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PULIYURUMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAKUNNAM MURI, CHALAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. P.S. MINI KUMARI,PULIYURUMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAKUNNAM MURI, CHALAPPALLY P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.19020 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is about non-registration of a proper F.I.R and not conducting a proper investigation into an F.I.R which is already registered. The number, details etc. are not furnished. However, it is submitted that Ext.P1 application submitted before the Superintendent of Police has not evoked any proper action. 2. In short, the grievance is about non-registration of crime and the failure to conduct a proper investigation. The decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945] has changed the law on the point and they are authority for the proposition that a person aggrieved by such non-registration of the F.I.R or the omission to conduct a proper investigation cannot rush to this court with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They must first take resort to the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to them under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate. W.P.C.No.19020/08 2 3. Inasmuch as the petitioners have not exhausted the said equally efficacious alternative remedy, I am satisfied that this writ petition cannot be considered favourably. 4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the petitioners' right to approach the learned Magistrate with a proper application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.19020/08 3 W.P.C.No.19020/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007