IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27376 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NARAYANANKUTTY ALIAS HARIDAS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY GUPTAN, PATTIPARAMBU, KOOTTUPATHA, THIRUVILVAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 588. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR, PIN-680 587. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 588. 3. K.R.MOHANAN, S/O.KUTTIRAMAN EZHUTHASSAN, KOTTATUKULAMBIL, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR, PIN-680 588. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. R2 BY ADV. SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27376 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Inaction on the part of the 1st respondent on Ext.P3 complaint is what is complained of in the writ petition. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to take cognizance of Ext.P3 and take appropriate action thereon. In my view, a writ petition with the aforesaid relief is not maintainable as indicated by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(2) SCC 409), where it has been held that a person aggrieved by such inaction of the Police has his remedy before the Magistrate by moving an appropriate petition in terms of the Cr.PC. Therefore, with that liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg