IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35588 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJEENA VAHAB, W/O.LATE C.M.ABDUL VAHAB, AGED 43 YEARS, INVESTOR AND AUTHORIZED MANAGER AND SIGNATORY OF LABIB TRADING AND CONTRACTING LLC P.O.BOX NO.1357, POSTAL CODE 111, CPO-ZEEB, SULTANATE OF OMAN R/AT LIALA MANZIL,NEDUMBAIKULAM, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AMANULLA KHAN, S/O.MOHAMMED MADAR SAHIB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 339, KANJIRAMVILA, KUNDAYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM (RURAL) ALUVA. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.35588 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant/informant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 467 I.P.C. The crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining about the inadequate and insufficient investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer. According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is not conducting a proper investigation. He is interested in the accused and in these circumstances it is prayed that invoking the extraordinary inherent constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, appropriate directions may be issued to ensure proper conduct of the investigation. 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, cannot rush to this Court with petitions W.P(C). No.35588 of 2008 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has a reservoir of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and can issue appropriate directions to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. Ordinarily and normally without and before exhausting such equally efficacious remedy which is available for a person having a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein, he cannot come to this Court. I find no extra ordinary circumstance which can persuade this Court to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. 4. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate with an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions referred above. 5. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-