IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20692 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHEEJA JOHNSON, AGED 35, W/O. JOHNSON, MALIEKAL HOUSE, WEST CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE DY.S.P., SHORNUR. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATIN. 5. SAKKEER, PROPRIETOR, BISMI OIL MILLS, OPPOSITE PATAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 20692 of 2008-L ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner – a woman, is the owner of a vehicle. She has a grievance that her vehicle is illegally detained by the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, she has lodged a complaint before the local police and also before the Superintendent of Police. But no action is forthcoming. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition for issue of appropriate direction to the respondents – the local police and the Superintendent of Police, to register a crime and conduct proper investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) the petitioner is entitled to seek relief from this Court. The learned counsel for W.P.(c) No. 20692 of 2008-L -: 2 :- the petitioner only submits that the petitioner is afraid to go to the local Magistrate as the court is near the Police Station. 3. That excuse offered is, according to me, too insufficient and inadequate to justify any deviation from the procedure which has been stipulated in Sakiri Vasu. I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court can, need or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this writ petition will not absolve the 1st or 4th respondent to act in accordance with law if they have received the complaint of the petitioner. The dismissal of this writ petition will not also fetter the right of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate with a proper complaint. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 20692 of 2008-L -: 3 :-