IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20059 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.K.SUGUNA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.RANGASWAMY CHETTIAR, AZHAKAPADATH HOUSE, KIZHAKE THARA, NEAR A.M.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VADAVANNUR - 678 504, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SHERLY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SIVAMUGURAN, NO.45, SUNNAMBUKALTHODU VELANTHAVALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RAMAKRISHNAN, PANNIPERUNTHALA KUTTRIPPALLAM P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. RAJESWARI @ SATHY, MANIMUTHU NAGAR, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. UMA MAHESWARI, NO.8 KAMATCHI NAGAR, KOVAIPUDUR, COIMBATORE. 5. BABU, S/O.VADUKAMANI, KARINZHALIPALLAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 20060 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.Nos. 20059 & 20060 of 2008 K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The common petitioner in these petitions has chosen to present these petitions in person. On going through the averments in the petitions, this Court wanted the petitioner to explain why she was not engaging a counsel and whether she wants the assistance of a legal aid counsel. At that stage the petitioner in person stated before Court that she is willing to engage a counsel. Accordingly a counsel has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. 2. These petitions are filed incorporating prayers for direction to the police to register crimes and conduct investigations. What are the grievances of the petitioner? Four specific grievances are raised. 3. They are: (1) Her father expired 13 years back. She has doubts about the cause of death of her father. She wants a crime to be registered and investigation to be conducted. W.P.C.Nos. 20059 & 20060 of 2008 2 (2) She had handed over three stamp papers to the local Sub Registrar's office for getting certified copies of certain documents. She has been given certified copies. But she finds now that the certified copies have not been drawn on the stamp papers furnished by her. She now apprehends that some people in the Registrar's office in collusion with some others may have clandestinely kept with them the three stamp papers which she produced and they may make use of the same for objectionable and culpable causes. She therefore prays that an investigation be conducted into that aspect of the matter. (3) Thirdly she contends that her daughter has been assaulted and an investigation has to be conducted into that alleged crime. (4) Fourthly it is contended that she was in occupation of a building as a tenant. Her landlord has forcibly dispossessed her. Crime must be registered and investigation must be conducted into this incident. 4. Though the order passed in WPC 265 of 2008 filed by the petitioner before this Court is not produced, a detailed perusal of the writ petitions revealed that she had earlier filed such a petition before this Court. To quench the curiosity of this Court, the said file was W.P.C.Nos. 20059 & 20060 of 2008 3 called for and I have now perused the judgment dt. 23.6.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in that writ petition. It is very evident that the petitioner is attempting to steal a march over her rivals, against whom she has some disputes, basically civil in nature. 5. The learned Judges of the Division Bench in the order dt.23.6.08 had issued appropriate directions to safeguard the interests of the petitioner. It is in this context and at this juncture that the petitioner has come to this Court with these writ petitions. 6. I must remind myself the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC). A person, who has a grievance that a complaint filed by him before the police is not receiving the attention which it deserves and that a crime has not been registered, cannot rush to this Court with a prayer to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 or the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for such person to approach the learned Magistrate with a complaint seeking action under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., if such complaint before the S.H.O. or before the Superintendent of Police are not dealt with in accordance with law. W.P.C.Nos. 20059 & 20060 of 2008 4 7. I shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on the bonafides of the petitioner or about the acceptability of the allegations raised by her in the four instances referred above. I need only mention, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that I am not at all persuaded to agree that there are any exceptional reasons which should persuade me to entertain these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (supra). I restrain myself. I do not want to make any comment on the acceptability of the allegations or the bonafides of the petitioner. I take the view that these petitions deserve to be dismissed in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (supra). The petitioner can seek appropriate remedy under the law Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. 8. These Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm