IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 11154 of 2008(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- O.K.AMINU, W/O. KIZHAKKEKKARA SAIDALIKKUTTY, POST-PANANGATTOOR, (VIA) TANUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR. 3. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. P.BEERANKUTTY, PUTHENPARAMBIL, PARIYAPURAM P.0., AMSOM, PANANGATTOOR DESOM, (VIA) TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 11154 OF 2008 C ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, petitioner complains that despite having made various complaints to the 2nd respondent of cognizable offences against the 3rd respondent, action has not been taken. It is on that basis, this writ petition has been filed praying for orders directing the 2nd respondent to act upon the complaints so made and register crime against the 3rd respondent. The Apex court has considered this very question and held in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008(1) KLT 724) that in such circumstances, remedy available to an affected party is to move the Magistrate concerned and not to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reserving liberty for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as above, this writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp