IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3462 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.K.KUNHIKRISHNAN, 'REVATHI HOUSE', KARIVELLUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. K.P.BABU, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KUNNIPARAMBATH HOUSE, ANNUR P.O, VADAKKUMBAD, KARIVELLUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.3462 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner raises a grievance that no proper investigation is being conducted into Ext.P1 crime, ie. Crime No.403 of 2008 of Chandera Police Station in which he is arrayed as an accused. The petitioner has a further grievance that actually the informant/complainant in that crime is committing offences against the petitioner and that the complaint lodged by him (Ext.P2) is not attended to nor is an F.I.R registered on the basis of the said complaint. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievances of the petitioner are two fold : (i) no proper investigation is conducted into Ext.P1 and (ii) no crime is registered on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. 2. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this Court in John Peruvanthanam v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KHC 226] and Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT W.P(C). No.3462 of 2009 2 945], it is trite that a person, who has a grievance that no F.I.R has been registered on the basis of his complaint and that no proper investigation is being conducted into a crime, cannot rush to this Court directly with applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A person with such a grievance must first exhaust the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He can approach the learned Magistrate with grievances against non registration of the F.I.R and inadequate and improper conduct of the investigation. 3. Of course in an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand such a course, this Court has the reservoir of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 Cr.P.C to issue appropriate directions. 4. I am not persuaded to agree that any such exceptional reasons do exist in this case. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to raise his grievance before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions from the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Needless to say, if the W.P(C). No.3462 of 2009 3 petitioner raises such grievances before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, appropriate orders must be passed by the learned Magistrate. Needless further to say that if the petitioner is not satisfied about the orders passed, his option to come to this Court to raise his grievance thereafter shall also remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-