IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1619 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THAMPAN THOMAS, ANJILIVILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLICKAL EAST, VAVERICKAL P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 4. MANAGER, MUTHOOT LEASING & FINANCERS LTD., KAYAMKULAM. BY G.P. SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 1619 of 2009-P ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that the complaint filed by him before the police alleging commission of a crime against him has not been acted upon or any action taken by the police officials. 2. I am afraid, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court at the present juncture. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) which has been followed by this Court in John v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 462), it is now trite that a person with the grievance that no crime has been registered cannot rush to this Court with applications under Art.226 of the Constitution or Sec.482 Cr.P.C. directly without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy available W.P.(c) No. 1619 of 2009-P -: 2 :- to him under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not chosen to invoke that jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. No satisfactory reasons are shown to exist as to why this writ petition should be entertained notwithstanding the dictum in the cases referred above. I am of opinion that the petitioner must be relegated to seek his remedy under Sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. 3. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate with appropriate application under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. or the option of the petitioner to come before this Court if his grievance remains without redressal after so approaching the learned Magistrate. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 1619 of 2009-P -: 3 :-