IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29815 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SUKUMARI, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANVILA NEYYASSERI MELEPUTHENVEETTIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ATTIPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHOOR, THUMBA POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE CIRCLE OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 3. THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, TRIVANDRUM. 4. K.SUKUMARAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT NEYYASSERI PUTHENVEEDU THEKKEKUNNU MANVILA, KULATHOOR.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. ATTIPRA VILLAGE. R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 29815 of 2008 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the conduct of the first respondent not taking any action on Ext.P2 complaint, which has allegedly been presented before him by the petitioner. In short the grievance is that no F.I.R. has been registered and investigation commenced on the basis of Ext.P2 complaint filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. 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 John v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 462) it is now trite that a person with a grievance like that of the petitioner, cannot come directly to this court with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. without and before exhausting the equally efficacious remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Of course if exceptional reasons are W.P.C.No. 29815 of 2008 2 shown, this Court does have the jurisdictional competence to entertain such a petition. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to find any such exceptional reasons that would justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This writ petition only deserves to be dismissed with observations. 4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek relief from the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as stipulated in the two decisions referred above. (R. BASANT) Judge tm