IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6058 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUSEELA ANILKUMAR, W/O.ANILKUMAR KADUVAMTHURUTHIL, MANGARAM, KONNI P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 6058 OF 2008 U ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had complained to the 3rd respondent of certain crimes allegedly committed by a driver of hers and certain other persons. That complaint did not evoke any positive action from the 3rd respondent. Then the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said complaint has also not invoked any positive action from the 2nd respondent. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be invoked and a direction may be issued to the respondents to register a crime and properly investigate the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] this request can be WPC.6058/08 : 2 : accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the said decision does not altogether exclude the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate extraordinary case such jurisdiction can still be invoked and this is one such an appropriate case in which that jurisdiction ought to be invoked. 3. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am unable to perceive any circumstances which can take this case out of the sweep of the decision in Sakri Vasu. 4. The petitioner must resort to the alternative remedies which are available to her. She can file a private complaint and certainly request the learned Magistrate to refer the same to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and/or if the learned Magistrate is not satisfied, request the learned Magistrate to take cognizance under section 200 Cr.P.C. and order an appropriate enquiry/investigation under WPC.6058/08 : 3 : section 202 Cr.P.C. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks