IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25293 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VARGHESE V.K,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM,KOCHI 682 008, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF),PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (STATE POLICE CHIEF),POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN 682 002, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25293/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 13.2.2009 BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 2.6.2011 SENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECIEPT DATED 3.6.2011 IN THE NAME OF THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25293 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner says that he has filed Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent making allegations of cognizable offence against his wife Mercy Varghese and two police constables, which has since been forwarded to the 3rd respondent. His complaint is one of inaction and delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in taking appropriate action in the matter. It is therefore the writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:- “i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to initiate legal action on the basis of the Ext.P2, complaint forthwith. ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to make an enquiry against the Police officers.” 2. First of all, the persons against whom allegations have been made in the complaint are not made parties to this writ petition. Secondly, even if it is the complaint of the petitioner that there is inaction or latches on the part of the 3rd respondent, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the concerned Magistrate Court and not to file a writ petition. This principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008(1) KLT 724 (SC). WPC No. 25293/11 :2 : Therefore, without prejudice to the remedies that are available, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp