IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23195 of 2008(J) -------------------------- CRIME NO.349/08 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION CMP.3047/2008 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ARUN SHANKAR, AGED 31 YEARS 29/88, SREESHYLAM, VIVEKODAYAM SCHOOL LANE, THRISSUR – 680 001. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.C.I.D., THRISSUR. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 23195 of 2008 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. He had filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, the accused are very influential and the police machinery is compelling the petitioner to settle the dispute. No proper investigation is being conducted. No useful purpose will be achieved by permitting the present Investigating Officer to continue with the investigation. The petitioner in these circumstances prays that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked to direct the investigation to be conducted by the CBCID. 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) a person W.P.C.No. 23195 of 2008 2 like the petitioner, who has a grievance about the investigation conducted, must approach the learned Magistrate ordinarily and seek direction. With such a grievance the petitioner cannot rush to this Court directly with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without and before choosing to request the Magistrate to invoke his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Of course in the facts of an exceptional case, the jurisdiction of this Court can be said to remain unfettered, but ordinarily and normally the petitioner has to follow the procedure indicated in Sakiri Vasu (supra) and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to deviate from that procedure. 3. I am not satisfied that there are any compelling reasons in this case. The petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate and request the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He can complain to the Magistrate that his request to change the Investigating Officer has not been considered by the superior officers, who are obliged to consider such grievance and take appropriate action under Section 36 Cr.P.C. If the petitioner's grievance remains without W.P.C.No. 23195 of 2008 3 satisfaction by the action at the hands of the Magistrate, certainly his option to come to this Court shall remain. 4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. His option to approach this Court, if his grievance remains not redressed, shall also remain unfettered. (R. BASANT) Judge tm