IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37139 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PROF.D.ARAVINDAKSHAN, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. AGASTYA BIOPHARMA INDIA LTD., KOVILAKOM, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.37139 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the injured in an incident which took place on the road on 05/12/2007. Crime No.672/07 of Chavara police station has been registered in respect of that incident. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. According to the petitioner, it was not a case of accident at all. It was a case of an intentional attempt to cause injury to the petitioner. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that no proper F.I.R has been registered and no proper investigation has been conducted into the crime. If a proper investigation were conducted, the police would have included the allegations regarding intentional infliction of injury on the petitioner by the accused. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a deliberate incident where the intention of the offender was to do away with the petitioner. 2. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that no proper F.I.R has been registered and no proper investigation has been conducted. The petitioner prays that appropriate W.P.C.No.37139/07 2 directions may be issued in the matter invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor, in the light of the decision in Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] contends that it is not necessary to issue any directions invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding registration of the crime, he can seek issue of appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner can also file an appropriate private complaint and offer to substantiate his allegations in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. If the grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation has been conducted then also the petitioner can approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. I find the objections of the learned Public Prosecutor to be justified. After the decision in Sakri Supra, it is very clear that the learned Magistrate has necessary powers under law to issue appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to abate the grievance of an insufficient and improper W.P.C.No.37139/07 3 investigation. If the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under law, it is not necessary to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue any directions now. 5. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C from the learned Magistrate as explained in Sakri Vasu Supra. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.37139/07 4 W.P.C.No.37139/07 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007