IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37810 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MUTHANIKKATTU THITHIKUTTY, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. ENDEENKUTTY, KIZHAKKE- PEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, TRIPRANGODE AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR. 2. MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O. MOHAMMED ALIAS BAPPU, KIZHAKKEPEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE,TRIPRANGODE AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: wW.P.C. 37810 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE PETITIONER EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT V. RAMKUMAR, J ...................................... W.P.(C) No. 37810 of 2007 A ...................................... Dated:17-01-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is an aged lady claims to be owning 38 cents of land in Perumthalloor Desom of Tirur Taluk. On the basis of Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent Mohammed Basheer, the Tirur police registered Ext.P1 F.I.R. for an offence punishable under Secs. 447 and 379 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. for having committed theft of coconuts from the coconut trees standing in the petitioner's property. The petitioner would have it that the 2nd respondent who was enlarged on bail by the J.f.C. M. , Tirur has again committed the very same offence necessitating Ext.P3 complaint before the Dy.S.P. Tirur. She, therefore, prays for a direction to the first respondent Deputy W.P.(C) No. 37810 of 2007 A -:2:- Superintendent of Police, Tirur to consider Ext.P3 and initiate appropriate action against the 2nd respondent including cancellation of the bail granted in Crime No. 72 of 2004 covered by Ext.P1 F.I.R. In the light of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Others – 2007 (13) Scale 693, the petitioner cannot file a Writ Petition to seek a direction to the police to register an F.I.R. His remedy is to file a a complaint before the Magistrate concerned under Sec. 190 read with Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. But if the 2nd respondent has committed the very same offence and has thereby violated the terms of the bail order, the first respondent can very well move the Magistrate for cancellation of bail granted to the 2nd respondent. Hence, leaving the petitioner to the remedy approaching before the Magistrate, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE). ani /true copy/