IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20941 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.K.VALSALA , AGED 57 YEARS W/O. LATE A.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, MANIYANKUNNU, BRAHMAMANGALAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SMT.M.J.SHINSA MOLE SMT.K.MEKHA DINESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NEW DELHI. 4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION KOCHI. 5. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, RURAL ERNAKULAM. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULANTHURTHY POLICE STATION PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.20941 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the unfortunate mother whose young son was murdered on 21/5/2007 by a group of persons. The F.I.R has been registered. Investigation is in progress. In the F.I.R no person has been named as accused. But in the course of investigation, police have identified that four persons were involved in the commission of the crime. Those four persons have already been arrested. 2. According to the petitioner, the police is not conducting a proper investigation. A friend of the deceased one Salim, was also allegedly present along with him at the time of the incident. He had seen the incident. According to him there were seven accused persons involved in the commission of the crime. But the police, for obscure reasons, are satisfied with their theory that only four persons are involved in the crime. According to the petitioner, the said Salim has not been questioned also by the police. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this court with this petition under W.P.C.No.20941/08 2 Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue appropriate directions. 3. After 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] it is absolutely clear that a person like the petitioner who has grievance about the inadequate or insufficient investigation cannot come to this court directly with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Unless such petitioner is able to show exceptional reasons which must persuade this court to entertain such an application notwithstanding the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate, such petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot ordinarily be entertained by this court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Her grievance certainly deserves to be attended to; but I am certainly of the opinion that no sufficient circumstances are shown to exist which can persuade this court to invoke the W.P.C.No.20941/08 3 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C to issue directions notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri (Supra). 5. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner moves the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for appropriate directions the learned Magistrate must consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits. If the grievance of the petitioner is not satisfied, of course, she can again approach this court to challenge such order. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.20941/08 4 W.P.C.No.20941/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007