IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5163 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G.SURENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 73 YEARS, KIZHEKKEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELIYAM WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SASIDHARAN, KIZHAKKEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELIYAM WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. MANOMANI, W/O.SASIDHARAN, KIZHAKKEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELIYAM WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. DARLY, KIZHAKKEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELIYAM WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C).No. 5163 of 2008 M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The short grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken against the complaint raised by him against his daughters and son-in-law. According to him, the complaint was filed before the second respondent. There was no action taken. Thereupon Ext.P1 complaint was sent to the first respondent, Superintendent of Police, Kollam. The short prayer is that there may be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to register a crime against respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the grievance raised by the petitioner. He is the father/father-in-law of respondents 3 to 5. 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 AIR SCW 309) this court would be justified in issuing any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is trite that it is for the petitioner to comply with Section 154(3) W.P(C).No. 5163 of 2008 2 Cr.P.C. or to approach the learned Magistrate with a private complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by filing a private complaint and by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, the petitioner's grievance may not be satisfactorily redressed as investigation by the police is necessary in the matter. 4. I am certain that the learned Magistrate, when he receives a complaint, must certainly exercise his option as to whether the complaint must be sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or he must proceed to take cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. At that stage the petitioner can certainly advance his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to follow the appropriate course. In any view of the matter, in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra) I am not satisfied that any direction can, need or deserves to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm