IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27641 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PRATHAPKUMAR, S/O.SIVASANKARANPILLAI, SUSEELANILAYAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 5. JOSE MATHEW, THODIYAPALLY, PERUMPALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY G.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 27641 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be a victim of a motor accident. According to him, the 5th respondent was riding his motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner. The said motor-cycle hit the petitioner who was a pedestrian. He suffered serious injuries. On his complaint, Crime No.177/08 of the Muvattupuzha Police Station has been registered. Investigation is in progress. According to the petitioner, a proper investigation is not being conducted and he apprehends that succumbing to the influence wielded by the 5th respondent, the Investigating Officer may not conduct a proper investigation and may not file a proper final report. In these circumstances, he has come to this Court with a prayer that appropriate directions may be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution or under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. W.P.(c) No. 27641 of 2008-N -: 2 :- 2. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) as followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), it is trite that a person with a grievance like the one aired by the petitioner in this case cannot rush to this Court with a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution or Sec.482 Cr.P.C. without and before exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not approached the learned Magistrate. No satisfactory explanation is offered as to why he had not approached the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to Ext.P4 application submitted by him before the superior officials of the police, he has, subsequent to the filing of this petition, been contacted by the superior police officers. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is satisfied that he gets his relief consequent to Ext.P4 he need not do the same. In case he is not satisfied that proper investigation is being conducted even after Ext.P4, it is for him certainly to approach the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. and if the petitioner so approaches the learned Magistrate, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must W.P.(c) No. 27641 of 2008-N -: 3 :- consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu and issue appropriate directions. 3. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge