IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33432 of 2009(Q) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.K.JOSEPH, VAZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., ANAPANTHI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THANKACHAN KUZHIKALATHIL, KUZHIKALATHIL HOUSE, CHARAL P.O., PUNNAKKUNDU, KANNUR. 3. K.C. THOMAS, KANHAMALA HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., ANAPANTHY, KANNUR. 4. THOMAS V.J., VALIYATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., ANAPANTHY, KANNUR. 5. GEORGE P.E., S/O.PANPAKKAL GEORGE, PANPAKKAL HOUSE, CHARAL P.O. PUNNAKKUNDU, KANNUR. 6. THE SECRETARY, AYYANKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.C.NO.33432 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 18th February 2010 JUDGMENT Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to register a vigilance case against respondents 2 to 6 and to investigate the same in accordance with law contending that in Ext.P2 petition submitted before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kannur petitioner has brought to the notice the offences committed by respondents 2 to 6. Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a statement that Ext.P2 complaint was received on 3/8/2009 and it was registered as P.1005/2009 and forwarded to the Director, Vigilance and Anti Wpc 33432/09 2 Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram for further action as without sanction and conducting a preliminary enquiry, no FIR could be registered. It is also stated that from the Director of Vigilance following the procedure, it was sent to the Director of Panchayat with a direction to have a preliminary enquiry for registration of the crime and therefore, petitioner is not entitled get a direction to register the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, no writ of mandamus could be issued to third respondent to register a case under Prevention of Corruption Act without first conducting a preliminary enquiry Wpc 33432/09 3 and finding that there is a case to be investigated. Statement of the Dy.S.P shows that on getting Ext.P2 complaint, steps were initiated to have a preliminary enquiry for the purpose of considering the question whether a crime is to be registered or not. In such circumstances, I find that no writ of mandamus or direction as sought for is warranted. Even otherwise, if a complaint is filed and case is not registered, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the appropriate court, as provided under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure as held by the Apex court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008 (1) KLT 724). Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.