IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1519 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- KUNHIMOIDEEN, S/O.KUNHAMMU, PARAMBIL VEETTIL, VENNIYOOR DESOM, VENNIYOOR AMSOM, THENNALA TALUK, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.C.I.D., PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.1519 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered before the Mannarkkad Police Station as Crime No.874 of 2006 alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 392 and 454 I.P.C. The incident took place on 08.07.05 and the F.I.R was registered only on 22.11.06. The F.I.R was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no proper investigation has been conducted. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. 2. The petitioner immediately will have to answer the question whether in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], the petitioner had approached the learned Magistrate and if not, why he has chosen to come to this Court directly without and W.P(C). No.1519 of 2009 2 before approaching the learned Magistrate with appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not done the same. He submits that this may be treated as an exceptional case where notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (supra), the petitioner is entitled to come before this Court and seek appropriate direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the accused are police officials. The crime was registered as early as in 2006. He further points out that though the incident took place on 08.07.2005, it is the case of the petitioner that no proper action was taken on the complaints earlier filed and this obliged the petitioner to go before the Magistrate and file a complaint which happened to be referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The circumstances enumerated above do not appear to me to be sufficient to deviate from normal rule in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] that a person who has a grievance about the inadequate conduct of the investigation must ordinarily approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. W.P(C). No.1519 of 2009 3 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further made clear that if the grievance of the petitioner remains without redressal after the orders of the Magistrate, the petitioner's option to come to this Court again shall also remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-