IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1752 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.RAJAPPAN, AGED 71 YEARS,S/O.KADUTHA THOTTATHIL HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM KURICHI, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686532. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,THIRUVNANTHAPRUAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOTTAYAM. 3. MR.M.S.SOMAN, FORMERLY PERSIDENT KURICHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NOW MEMBER, KURICHI, KOTTAYAM- 686532. RESIDING AT MANGHAT (GOURISAM) NEELAMPEROOR P.O. KOTTAYAM 686534. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 1752 of 2009 H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner makes a grievance that the Vigilance Department is not properly investigating a crime registered, in which the third respondent is an accused. The number and details of the crime are not made available. The petitioner apprehends that it is because of the influence of the third respondent that no proper investigation is being conducted by the police. He is not the complainant or the victim in that crime, but he is a person who is interested in ensuring that proper investigation is conducted into crimes, where corruption by public functionaries is alleged. 2. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), it is now trite that a defacto complainant with an identical grievance cannot come directly to this court with petitions under Article W.P.C.No. 1752 of 2009 2 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the instant case the petitioner has not approached the Special Judge, before whom the registration of the F.I.R. is reported. If there be inadequate and insufficient investigation, the Magistrate/court is justified in supervising, monitoring and even interfering with the investigation, it is trite, after the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra). Ordinarily and normally therefore a person aggrieved by such inadequate investigation has to be referred to the Magistrate to seek appropriate relief under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Of course, I am in total agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that if exceptional reasons are there, this Court does have the jurisdictional competence to deviate from the normal rule specified in Sakiri Vasu. But the question is whether there are any such exceptional reasons. I must therefore relegate the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Special Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, needless to say, the petitioner can come to this Court seeking appropriate direction under Article 226 of the W.P.C.No. 1752 of 2009 3 Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If the petitioner files such a petition, needless to say, the Special Judge must consider such application in accordance with law on merits and expeditiously in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu as followed by the decision in Vasanthi Devi supra). 4. This writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. 5. Issue copy today itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm