IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6642 of 2011(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M.MOHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, MUNDANCHERY HOUSE, VATTAMANNAPPURAM, EDATHANATTUKARA P.O., MANNARKKADU TALUK - 678601. 2. GOKUL RAJ, S/O.K.P.MOHANDAS, 101, SANTHI PARK, JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-69. 3. M.P.NANDAKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVA MENON, NAPPAN HOUSE, AISWARYA NIVAS, AYYAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678683. 4. C.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KANNA PANICKER, CHERUPPUMPULLIL HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYODE P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 5. RAVINDRANATHAN, S/O.K.KUTTAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEKKARA HOUSE, KADAMBOOR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN SRI.A.S.FARIDIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SREEKRISHNAPURAM-678 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 679 001. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6642 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners claimed to be the office bearers of an organization named 'Bhakthajana Samrakshana Samithi', Saravanabhava Madom, Sreekrishnapuram in Palakkad District. According to them one K.P.Muralikrishnan @ Sadguru Muralikrishnan is the chairman of a public trust by name ' Saravanabhava Madom Dharma Trust' which is registered in Kerala and also the chairman of another trust by name 'Om Saravana Baba Seva Foundation' registered in Karnataka State. The said Muralikrishnan had established madoms and acquired estates at various places. According to the petitioners public trusts and madoms were established for charitable purposes. Later petitioners learnt that the said Muralikrishnan is a fake swamy interested only in amassing wealth . The public trusts' and madom's activities were used by him only as a mask for achieving the said aim. Aggrieved, petitioners submitted a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Sreekrishnapuram on 27.01.2011. Certain other persons have also made complaints. Media including the press and television channels had also reported the alleged illegal activities of the trust. But the Sub Inspector is keeping silent over the matter and no investigation is being conducted. Learned counsel has submitted that in such situations where the public functionaries do not act as provided under law it is within the power of this Court to issue necessary direction invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decision in Kedar WP(C) No.6642/2011 2 Narayan Parida v. State of Orissa ((2009) 9 SCC 538). It is pointed out by the learned counsel that after petitioners filed this petition cases have been registered against some of the petitioners by the Sreekrishnapuram Police as Crime No.71 of 2011 for various offences. It is also submitted by learned counsel that on the complaint of another person, Sreekrishnapuram Police has registered Crime No.70 of 2011 against the said Muralikrishnan for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint preferred by the petitioners the Sub Inspector conducted an enquiry and the enquiry revealed that no offence as alleged is involved so as to register a case. Petitioners and Muralikrishnan were working together and while so, some disputes arose regarding the management of properties consequent to which complaint was preferred. Since no offences were disclosed in the enquiry no case was registered. 3. In the decision relied on by learned counsel the Supreme Court has held that the courts and in particular the High courts are the guardians of life and liberty of citizens and if there is any flavour of deliberate misuse of the authority vested in the investigating authority, the High Court or the Supreme Court may certainly step into to correct such injustice or failure of justice. WP(C) No.6642/2011 3 4. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to direct the Police to register a case. That is the function of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) if a complaint is properly filed. According to the first respondent enquiry on the complaint preferred by the petitioner did not reveal any offence. In such a situation this Court cannot direct the Police to register a crime. But, if petitioners still hold the view that any offence is committed by Muralikrishnan, proper course available to them is to move the Magistrate concerned by filing appropriate complaint and if any such complaint is filed it is for the Magistrate to look into the matter as provided under the Code. It is also open to the petitioners to invoke other remedies available to them if they are so advised. Resultantly leaving petitioners to invoke appropriate remedy available to them as provided under law, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks