IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3393 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SRI.P.H.ABDUL RASHEED, RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER (KSEB), PALAKKAPARAMBIL, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3393 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in two crimes registered at the Kalamassery police station as crime No.1011/07 registered on 26.10.07 for offences punishable under sections 447 and 427 read with 34 IPC and crime No.1194/07 registered on 18.12.07 for offences punishable, inter alia, under sections 452 and 326 IPC. The petitioner claims to be the President of the Edappally Mahallu Muslim Jamath Committee. According to the petitioner, he takes active interests in the affairs of the Jamath only because of his commitment to secularism and the sublime values under the constitution which he has imbibed. Both the crimes registered at his instance relate to offences committed by persons who are extremists and who have no religious tolerance. According to the petitioner, no proper investigation has been WPC.3393/08 : 2 : conducted by the investigators so far into these crimes. No accused has been arrested and investigation is not made in a proper manner. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation by superior officials of the police. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes this application. He reports that the needful has been done for the proper conduct of the investigation into both crimes. The investigating officer expects that tangible results can be achieved at the earliest and in these circumstances, no directions are necessary in this writ petition, it is submitted. 3. The decision in Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] is authority for the proposition that a person aggrieved by the quality of investigation must first approach the learned Magistrate with a proper request for issue of directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said decision is authority for the proposition that such a person cannot be encouraged ordinarily to come at the first instance WPC.3393/08 : 3 : before this Court without and before exhausting the alternative remedies available to him under law seeking directions under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such persons must approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. , it is held categorically. It has also been clearly stated that the Magistrate has sufficient powers under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to issue appropriate directions from time to time. The Magistrate concerned can monitor, supervise and even interfere with the investigation if a proper investigation is not conducted, it is held categorically. High Courts have been advised to discourage the practice of persons coming directly to them without and before exhausting the alternative remedies available to him under law. 4. Though impressed by the bona fides of the petitioner, the petitioner must certainly be told to resort to the ordinary course available to him under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. WPC.3393/08 : 4 : He must be relegated to approach the learned Magistrate to seek appropriate directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, needless to say, must consider the grievance of the petitioner and issue appropriate directions as may be found necessary from time to time. 5. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks