THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33831 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner’s grievance in this Writ Petition is that while the oral complaint made by her was recorded by the Writer in the police station; the contents of the said F.I.R. are at variance with the oral complaint made by the petitioner; and the persons, who the petitioner alleged had committed the offence, were not named in the F.I.R. As held by the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the petitioner has an effective remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), whereunder the Magistrate concerned has not only the power to order registration of an offence, but also to direct the officer incharge of the concerned police station to hold proper investigation and, if need be, to monitor the investigation, if any, being carried on. If the petitioner has any grievance with regards the F.I.R. being at variance with the oral complaint made by her, or that the persons whom she had mentioned as having committed the offence were not being shown as the accused in the complaint, her remedy is to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned in this regard, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 22.12.2011 MRKR [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409