IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7578 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.K.MUHAMMED, S/O. ABDUREHIMAN KUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, URDU TEACHER, GOVT. U.P.SCHOOL, KANNOOR, KUNNATHARA P.O., ATHOLI-VIA, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE S.I. OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 7578 OF 2008 B ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T To put it in a nutshell the grievance of the petitioner is that six crimes have been registered in which he figures as an accused. The crimes have been registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under sections 308, 324, 452, 354, etc. Investigation is going on into these six different crimes, all registered at the Thamarassery police station, Kozhikode. 2. The petitioner wants investigation to be directed to be conducted by some other officer other than the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is interested in the de facto complainant and it is prayed that some superior officer may be take over the investigation in the said case. 2. The grievance is about inadequate/insufficient investigation. After the decision in Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] the Magistrate has ample powers WPC.7578/08 : 2 : under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. If the petitioner has any such grievance about the inadequacy/insufficiency of investigation, it is well settled now that the petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions. Without and before approaching the learned Magistrate and seeking such directions, the petitioner cannot, on an ambiguous assertion that the 3rd respondent is interested in the de facto complainant, choose to request this Court to invoke the extraordinary equitable constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. 3. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed making it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate to seek appropriate directions under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as explained in Sakri Vasu. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks