IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25199 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- CRIME NO.212/08 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------ PRASANNAN M.N., S/O. NARAYANAN MANGOTTATHIL, AYYAPPANKOVIL P.O. ANAKUZHY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION KATTAPPANA. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SATHEESAN, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE AYYAPPAN KOVIL VILLAGE, MATTUKKADA VILLAGE. R1 TO 4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 25199 of 2008 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defacto complainant in crime No.212 of 2008 of Upputhara police station in Idukki. The crime was registered on 6.8.2008. According to the petitioner, there is a counter case also registered and both the cases are pending before the same police station for investigation. 2. The petitioner laments that no proper investigation is being conducted into Crime No.212 of 2008 by the Upputhara police. This, it is contended, is because the accused persons are very influential and owe allegiance to a ruling political party. In these circumstances, to complain about the inadequacy of the investigation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. I am afraid the petitioner's attempt is premature. 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 W.P.C.No. 25199 of 2008 2 Devi v. S.I. Of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945) it is trite that a person with such a grievance like the one which the petitioner wants to raise before this Court now cannot directly come to this Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without and before exhausting the remedy available to him under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is trite that the learned Magistrate has powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to effectively intervene and supervise the investigation. The petitioner must go before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate direction. Ordinarily that is the course which a person with a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner must resort to. Of course, if there are exceptional reasons the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked. But absolutely no circumstances are shown to exist to deviate from the normal course, in the facts and circumstances of this case. The allegation that one of the accused is an influential persons, according to me, is not sufficient for this Court to deviate from the normal course. 4. This Writ petition is dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the W.P.C.No. 25199 of 2008 3 rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (R. BASANT) Judge tm