IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17553 of 2010(Q) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------ AMBIKA DEVI, D/O.LATE MR.K.A.UTHAMAN, MANIMANGALAM, KARUMADI.P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRABHU MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAPPUZHA. 4. VENUGOPAL (BROTHER OF PETITIONER), MANIMANGALAM, KARUMADI.P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. RENUKA DEVI, KRISHNANIVAS, MUHAMMA.P.O, MUHAMMA. 6. N.MOHANDAS, KARTHIKA, AMBALAPPUZHA.P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. N.SASI KUMAR, SREENARAYANA MANGALAM, AMBALAPPUZHA.P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 8. CHELLAPPAN, KESHAVA BHAVANAM, KARUMADI.P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 9. RATHEESHAN, PATHMALAYAM, KARUMADI.P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J ...................................................... W.P.C. 17553 of 2010 ........................................................... Dated, 7th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who claims to be a physically handicapped woman aged 46 years residing along with her minor son in Ward No. 7 at Ambalappuzha Grama Panchayath inter alia seeks a direction against the 2nd respondent Superintendent of Police Alappuzha, to relieve the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalappuzha from the investigation of Crime No. 301 of 2010 of Ambalappuzha Police Station and to direct the Superintendent of Police either to investigate the case himself or to entrust the investigation with a senior police officer other than the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalappuzha after calling for the records in the above crime. According to the petitioner the 4th respondent, Venugopal, who is the brother of the petitioner is a practicing lawyer in the Ambalappzha Courts, and therefore, she may not get justice , if she approaches the J.F.C.M. Ambalappuzha with a petition under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 2. After the verdict of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. W.P.C. 17553 of 2010 -:2:- State of U.P. 2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC) the power lies with the Magistrate concerned to monitor the investigation of the crime and the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Magistrate. I do not think that the Judicial Officers in the State are amenable to extraneous considerations such as one of the accused persons being a practicing lawyer before them. The Magistracy in the State are far above such considerations and I see no reason as to why the Magistrate is, if approached, will show any sort of partisanship or leniency towards the 4th respondent merely because he is a practicing lawyer in that Court. The legal remedies of a litigant cannot be channalised to suit his or her convenience merely because he or she is apprehensive of the opposite party in the case. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appropriate Magistrate for suitable reliefs in the light of the verdicts in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra) and Kunga Nima Lepcha and Others v. State of Sikkim and Others – 2010 (4) SCC 513. Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE