IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33353 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NATH V.DEV @ MANU ,S/O. VADUDEVA MENON AGED 28 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, 'SMRITHI' 41/2724 ST. VINCENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.33353 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. The crime was registered on 19.09.08. The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted into that crime by the police. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that a proper investigation is being conducted by the police. 2. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], it is trite that a person, with a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein, cannot rush to this Court with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such person must first exhaust the equally efficacious alternative remedy which is available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, it has been clearly held. In these circumstances this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be W.P(C). No.33353 of 2008 2 entertained ordinarily. Of course the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P makes it clear that this is the ordinary rule and it is not as though exceptions cannot be admitted. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no reason to treat this as an exceptional case to which the rule of the Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P is not applicable. No circumstances have been pointed out which can justify such an approach in the facts of this case. 3. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate with an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions referred above. Needless again to mention that if the petitioner is aggrieved by such decision of the Magistrate, his option to come to this Court shall also remain unfettered. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-