IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 20509 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BINUKUTTAN PILLAI.B., S/O.K.BHASKARAN PILLAI, KATTOOR HOUSE, NJAKKANAL P.O., OCHIRA, KOLLAM 690 533. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (CBCID), ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 20509 OF 2007 N ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the accused in a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 IPC. The alleged crime was committed on 11.5.07. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed so far. The petitioner has a grievance that no proper investigation is being conducted. He has, therefore, come before this Court with a prayer that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked to direct the conduct of a proper and efficient investigation by Crime Branch CID. 2. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] it is trite that any person aggrieved by the conduct of an investigation must ordinarily first approach the learned Magistrate with appropriate application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The availability of this alternative remedy for grievance redressal for the petitioner must ordinarily persuade this Court not to encourage the petitioners to come to this Court with applications under Article 226 COI WPC.20509/07 : 2 : or section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. No circumstances have been shown to exist why this Court deviating from the mandate in Sakiri Vasu which decision has been followed by this Court later in Vasanthi Devi Vs. S.I. of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945] should deviate and issue directions invoking the extraordinary constitutional/jurisdiction under Article 226. 4. It is for the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate with appropriate application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider such application in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu and pass appropriate orders. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But, I make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and seek appropriate orders. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks