IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28532 of 2010(Q) ----------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ BIJU KURIAKOSE, S/O. O.C.KURIAKOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, UMMANCHERIL HOUSE, KURICHY.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNIT. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM R1, R4 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. B. PRAMOD R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.28532 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 20th October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the de facto complainant. Though cognizance on Ext.P4 final report was taken, petitioner filed W.P.C.5290/2007 for proper investigation contending that investigation is not complete. By Ext.P2 judgment, this Court finding that there was no proper investigation directed further investigation by Superior Police Officer not below the rank of Dy.S.P. Further investigation was conducted and Ext.P4 final report was submitted. Dissatisfied with the findings, contending that investigation is not exhaustive, petitioner filed W.P.C.17820/2008. By that time Wpc 28532/10 2 Honourable Supreme Court has made the legal position clear in the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008 (1) KLT 724 ) . In view of the said decision, by Ext.P5 judgment, petitioner was directed to approach the Magistrate raising the objections against the final report submitted under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner filed C.M.P.2585/2008 thereafter before the learned Magistrate. By Ext.P6 order learned Magistrate finding that investigation is not exhaustive directed further investigation. Ext.P7 report was thereafter submitted as provided under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for further investigation contending that investigation is not proper or complete. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Wpc 28532/10 3 petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra), remedy of the petitioner is to approach the concerned Magistrate and seek further investigation satisfying the learned Magistrate that further investigation is warranted. With that liberty the petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.