IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3825 of 2007() ------------------------- CRLMP.155/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... (CRIME NO.106 OF 2006 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- L.C.CHANDRALEKHA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.C.K.PRAKASAN, MOONLIGHT, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD WEST, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANIRUDHAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUZHIKKANNATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA WEST, KAVANADU PO, KOLLAM-3. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA WEST, KAVANADU.PO, KOLLAM-3. 3. L.C.CHITHRALEKHA, D/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, 'CHAITRAM' PERINADU.PO, NEERAVIL, KOLLAM DIST. 4. G.GOVINDAN PILLAI, ADVOCATE AND FORMER NOTORY,'GOKULAM', ALUMOODU,P.O, KOLLAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R5 ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1-3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3825 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.468 IPC. Her siblings and a lawyer are the accused persons. The crux of the allegations is that to get release of the amounts which were lying in the account of the deceased father a declaration/no objection statement was allegedly signed before the Notary public purporting that the petitioner had signed the said instrument. The petitioner has not signed the said instrument. It is a clear case of forgery. Raising these allegations, the petitioner filed a private complaint which was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation was conducted and a negative final report was filed before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate Crl.M.C. No.3825 of 2007 -: 2 :- did not accept the said report and directed the police to conduct further investigation. Such further investigation is being conducted. 2. At this stage, the petitioner has come before this Court. He complains about the inadequate and improper investigation. Even though the learned Magistrate has directed the police to conduct further investigation, no proper investigation is being conducted. The accused persons are very influential and that is why proper further investigation is not being conducted. The powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to issue appropriate directions to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer may be changed. Investigation may be entrusted to more competent and independent hands, it is contended. 3. Counsel has entered appearance for accused 1 to 3 who are siblings of the petitioners. The learned counsel contends that the petition is without any bona fides whatsoever. The petitioner is a woman who has disowned her signatures in many documents which are filed before the competent authorities. The transparent purpose is only to vex and harass the respondents herein i.e., her siblings. Both the brothers are lawyers. The 3rd respondent is the sister of the Crl.M.C. No.3825 of 2007 -: 3 :- petitioner. 4th respondent in a Notary who attested the documents. A perusal of the sequence of events in this case must convince this Court that the petitioner is not actuated by the interests of justice or the due administration of law. She is bent on private persecution. In these circumstances, this Court may not invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to issue any directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) and Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), the petitioner may be directed to approach the learned Magistrate if she has any grievance. The learned Magistrate may be directed to consider such grievance. No specific directions deserve to be issued now, it is urged. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Investigator has been taking all necessary steps. The document in question has to be sent to the expert to ascertain whether the petitioner, in fact, has signed the said document. For that purpose, necessary steps have already been taken. Report is awaited. At this juncture, there is no merit in the complaint raised about the inadequate investigation. At any rate, it is not necessary for this Court to issue any directions. The petitioner Crl.M.C. No.3825 of 2007 -: 4 :- may be relegated to approach the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The specific grievance of the petitioner is about the inadequate investigation in a crime registered at her instance. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi, it is trite that a person with a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner in this case – of inadequacy in the conduct of investigation in a crime, cannot rush to this Court with applications under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. or Art.226 of the Constitution. Such person who has an effective alternative remedy before the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. must be relegated at the first instance to seek such relief and without and before exhausting such equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him, his grievance need not be entertained under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. or Art.226 of the Constitution. 6. The decision in Sakiri Vasu does itself make clear that where exceptional reasons are there, the reservoir of powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. are available to this Court to be invoked in the interests of justice. But certainly such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. This Court has to ensure whether in the interests of justice such powers deserve to be Crl.M.C. No.3825 of 2007 -: 5 :- invoked as an exceptional case. 7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case which must be treated as an exception to the rule propounded in Sakiri Vasu. The petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate further directions under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. 8. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/