IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10081 of 2008(A) PETITIONER: 1. N.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, VADAKKE KURATTIYIL, NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA. 2. P.P.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MANAPURATHU VEEDU, NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA. 3. N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MELOOTTETHU HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM MURI, NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI. GIKKU JACOB, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 10081 OF 2008 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The short grievance of the petitioners is that Ext.P1 complaint filed before the 2nd respondent has not evoked any action and no crime has been registered. It is prayed that directions may be issued to the official respondents to register a crime on the basis of Ext.P1 and conduct a proper investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners was requested to explain how in the light of the decisions in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] and John Peruvanthanam Vs. State of Kerala [2008 (1) KHC 226] this Court will be justified in entertaining this grievance in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners only submits that they have knocked at all the doors but no proper action has been taken. WPC.10081/08 : 2 : 3. The decision in Sakiri Vasu as followed by John Peruvanthanam is authority for the proposition that a person having an identical grievance - that no crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by him before the police, cannot rush to this Court with applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 COI. It is for him to go before the learned Magistrate and make proper complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In an exceptional case where the interests of justice do demand it can still be held that this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 COI to deal with the grievance as in Sakiri Vasu their Lordships has advisedly only opined that “ordinarily” an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 COI cannot be entertained”. 4. Are there any extraordinary circumstances in this case? None have been urged before me and I am unable to find any. The inevitable consequence is that this petition cannot be entertained and the petitioners must be referred to WPC.10081/08 : 3 : go before the Magistrate and make proper applications before the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks