IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23151 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD NO.4266, POONJAR THEKKEKKARA P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. D.G.P.OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM 4. S.I.OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SPE/CBI,KOCHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.23151 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. According to the petitioner, no proper investigation is being conducted. In fact, on admitted facts allegations must be raised not the offences under Sections 420 and 409 I.P.C but under Sections 379 and 380 I.P.C. No proper investigation is being done. The accused have not been arrested. No serious attempt has been made to recover the properties involved. Investigating officers are not conducting a serious and purposeful investigation. In these circumstances, directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945], this petition complaining about inadequate investigation can be considered by this court at the first instance in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is now trite that a W.P.C.No.23151/08 2 person who has a grievance that investigation is not being conducted properly must exhaust the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before he chooses to approach this court. That is the ordinary rule. If there be any exceptional reasons, certainly powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked. I am not persuaded to agree that any such exceptional reasons exist in this case to justify this court entertaining this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the decision in Sakiri Vasu (Supra). The petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate with his grievance seeking action under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must consider the same in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) and dispose of the same on merits. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by such decision, his option to approach this court later will remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.23151/08 3 W.P.C.No.23151/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007