IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 26077 of 2003(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. D.GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNI, AGED 78, 'NANDAVANAM', OPP: K.V.M. HOSPITAL, CHERTHALA. 2. M.G.SAROJINI, AGED 75 YEARS, 'NANDAVANAM', OPP: K.V.M. HOSPITAL, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA. 4. N.VIJAYAKUMAR, PUTHENPURAYIL, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.26077 OF 2003-D -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that they had kept Indira Vikas Pathra and Kisan Vikas Pathras having face value to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in locker No.20 in Canara Bank at its Mayithara Branch, Cherthala. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent produced and encashed the above Indira Vikas Pathra and Kisan Vikas Pathras at the head post office, Cherthala. Petitioners made police complaints. It is stated that in spite of having received the same, respondents 1 to 3 did not take any action on the said complaint. It is with this allegation and seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to proceed with appropriate investigation on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 complaints that this writ petition is filed. 2. In my view, the issue raised in this writ petition is fully answered as per the principles laid down by this court in Sakiri Vasu V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008(2)SCC 409) where it has been held that if a person has a complaint that police are remaining inactive on a complaint made, the remedy of such WPC.No.26077 /2003 :2 : complainant is to move the appropriate Magistrate Court setting in motion proceeding against the accused and not to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Thus in the light of the principles laid down in this judgment, petitioners cannot seek a relief as sought in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. It is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in taking recourse to the remedies available to them under the Criminal Procedure Code. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/