IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24983 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- CC.584/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KALARCODE VENUGOPALAN NAIR, SREESADANAM, VADAKKAL POST, ALAPPUZHA-688003. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MADHU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRANATHA PILLAI, MEMANADU HOUSE, SANATHANAPURAM.P.O, KALARCODE ALAPPUZHA. 3. ANIL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRANATHA PILLAI, MEMANADU HOUSE, SANATHANAPURAM.P.O, KALARCODE ALAPPUZHA. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH STATION. 5. THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.24983 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has a grievance that no proper investigation is conducted in a case in which he is an accused who faces allegations, inter alia, under Section 427 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner wants to approach the learned Magistrate for direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. The petitioner seems to argue that in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309], such a prayer by him is maintainable. 2. If so, why has he not moved the learned Magistrate ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of specific indications in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] the learned Magistrate appears to be entertaining an impression that an accused cannot approach the learned Magistrate to point out the inadequacies in investigation. Therefore the petitioner wants this Court to issue directions to the learned Magistrate even before the petitioner files an application, to consider such application which would be filed in the light of W.P(C). No.24983 of 2008 2 the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] and issue appropriate direction. 3. The prayer is totally misconceived. The petitioner, if he is entitled for issue of directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate, must appear before the learned Magistrate and make a request. If that request is not accepted by the learned Magistrate and the petitioner feels that such non acceptance is not justified, the petitioner can seek his remedy under the ordinary law. I am not persuaded to agree that any direction need be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-