IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3277 of 2006(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL RAZAK MOHAMMED AL AMADI, P.O.BOX.NO.1011, DOHA, QATAR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHEMSUDHEEN, CHAKKIAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., AGALAD, TRICHUR, KERALA, INDIA HOLDER OF INDIAN PASSPORT NO.E. 9331936. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SAJITHA SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF NON KERALALITE AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, NON-RESIDENT KERALALITE AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.3277 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a grievance that no crime has been registered on his complaint regarding forgery of a cheque. It is the case of the petitioner that one Salim had forged the cheque and the petitioner had complained about such forgery to the Ambassador of the Indian Embassy at Doha. The said Ambassador, it is contended, had forwarded the petitioner's complaint Ext.P3 under Ext.P4 to the third respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has not taken any action. It is prayed that directions may be issued to respondents 3 and 4 to make sure that a crime is registered and proper investigation is conducted into such crime. 2. I am afraid in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] that the petitioner's prayer cannot be accepted. Another Bench of this court had followed the decision in Sakiri supra in John Peruvanthanam v.State of Kerala & Others [2008(1)KHC 226]. It is now well W.P.C.No3277/06. 2 settled after the decision in Sakiri Vasu Supra that a person aggrieved by inaction on the part of the police in registering a crime or in not allegedly conducting a proper investigation, cannot rush to this court with applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for such persons to take resort to the course which has been suggested in the said decision. Ordinarily, his attempt to come to this court with such grievance shall not be entertained favourably. 3. The crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that no crime has been registered on his complaint. The petitioner must certainly go before the learned Magistrate and make his grievance. The learned Magistrate may direct conduct of investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or in the alternative may choose to take cognizance with the option at a later stage to order investigation under the proviso to Section 202 Cr.P.C. At any rate, the decision in Sakiri Vasu supra make it crystal clear that the petitioner cannot, without and before approaching the learned Magistrate, rush to this court with the grievance that no crime has been registered on his complaint. W.P.C.No3277/06. 3 4. It follows from the discussions that the prayer of the petitioner in these circumstances cannot succeed. This petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate with a proper complaint seeking proper relief. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No3277/06. 4 W.P.C.No3277/06. 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007