IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22894 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ HARSHALEKHA S.,AGED 26 YEARS, D/O SAHAJANANDAN "RAHNA" THIKKODI AMSOM, TRIKKOTTUR DESOM, KOYILANDY THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. 3. VIKRAMAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 22894 of 2008 A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging, inter alia, the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The petitioner had filed a private complaint before the learned J.F.M.C., Parappanangadi against one Salim. That complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly Crime No.203 of 2008 was registered at the Thirurangadi police station. The same is under investigation. The petitioner's mother had filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner is missing and a crime was registered under the caption “woman missing”. The petitioner had come to this Court to contend that she was not actually missing and false and vexatious allegations are raised by her mother that she is missing. That controversy was resolved and order dt. 2.7.2008 dismissing Crl.M.C. 1942 of 2008 was passed by this Court. W.P.C.No. 22894 of 2008 2 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with the grievance that the said crime u/s. 376 I.P.C. is not being properly investigated. She prays that the Investigating Officer may be changed. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked and directions may be issued for a proper investigation of the case by a different Investigating Officer, it is prayed. 3. In the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC), which was considered and followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), it is not open for the petitioner now to come to this Court with this petition complaining about inadequate investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is now trite that a person with such a grievance must certainly approach the learned Magistrate and seek directions under the effective alternative remedy available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, without and before exhausting that alternative remedy available to her, has chosen to rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions. W.P.C.No. 22894 of 2008 3 If she approaches the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate must consider her grievance about inadequate investigation on merits and pass appropriate orders in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra). Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, the avenues of challenge available to her will remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm