IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 OP(Crl.).No. 1231 of 2010(Q) --------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.364/2010 REGISTERED BY S.I OF POLICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM] ........... PETITIONER: ------------------- SHEELA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, KOCHUPARACKAL, KOOTHATTUKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, PIN-686 662. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MOHAMMED ANSAR. THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(Crl).No.1231 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT This petition is filed by the de facto complainant for a direction to complete investigation of Crime No.364 of 2010 of Koothattukulam Police Station within a time frame to be fixed by this court. In that case, offences attributed are 120(b), 141, 149, 379, 391 and 395 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner filed a complaint before the police regarding the alleged incident but, there was no action. Thereon, he filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate who forwarded it to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") . Still, it is contended, there was no proper investigation and thereon petitioner approached the learned Magistrate again complaining of non investigation. Learned Magistrate called for a report and issued Ext-P2, order directing proper investigation. Grievance of petitioner is that in spite of that, the police has not properly investigated the case. 2. I have learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. It is seen that accepting the contention of petitioner learned Magistrate on November 6, 2010 has issued O.P(Crl).No.1231 of 2010 -: 2 :- order directing the investigating officer to conduct proper investigation of the case by taking necessary steps to recover the vehicle involved and apprehend the accused. But in spite of that, the investigating officer has not complied with that order and conduct investigation. It is not as if the learned Magistrate is powerless to issue necessary direction. The decision of the Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P (2008(1) KLT 724) provides that the trial court has the power to issue necessary direction. In such a situation, it is not necessary that petitioner should rush to this Court to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution. Resultantly this petition is closed directing petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate in the light of the order stated above and seek proper relief in the matter and without prejudice to the right of petitioner to approach this court for relief if circumstances warranted such a course in future. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-