IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6828 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ OMANA SHAJAN @ FRANCINA W/O.SHAJAN.K.JACOB, KAITHARATH HOUSE, KALLATUMKARA P.O., CHERANGAZHAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, IRINJALAKUDA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.6828 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted into Crime 660 of 2007 of Irinjalakuda Police Station in Trichur district. That crime was registered on the basis of the grievance of the petitioner. Though the said crime was registered as early as on 07.09.07, no proper investigation has been conducted into the allegations raised so far. The petitioner prays that the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 may be invoked to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted by changing the Investigating Officer. This in short is the prayer. 2. In the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309], it is for the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate seeking issue of directions under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to ensure a fair, proper and efficient investigation. The said decision is authority for the proposition that persons, who have a grievance against the nature and quality of the investigation conducted, cannot rush to this Court with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for them to move the learned Magistrate under Section W.P(C).No.6828 of 2008 2 156(3) Cr.P.C for appropriate directions. In the said decision it has been clarified that the Magistrate has the reservoir of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to issue appropriate directions to ensure a proper investigation. The Judges of the Supreme Court in that case have clearly held that the practice of persons rushing to this Court with grievance about investigation without and before moving the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C must and ought to be discouraged. Of course, if exceptional reasons are there, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will still remain. But I do not find any circumstances to invoke such jurisdiction without and before the petitioner exhausts the efficacious alternative remedy which, it is held, is available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-