IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35552 of 2008(G) -------------------------- CC.231/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SUDEVAN B., S/O.LATE BARGAVAN, BARGAVA BHAVAN, VEILOOR VILLAGE, MANGALAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SABU SMT.VASANTHA ASHOK RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY. 2. DGP OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARCOTIC CELL, TRIVANDRUM (RURAL) 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 5. SHAILAJA, D/O.SARALA, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHAM VEEDU, KUNNUCADU, KOITHURKONAM P.O., MELETHONIKKAL VILLAGE, MANGALAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 6. M.SHARAFUDHIN, H.C. (9) 7346, (HEAD CONSTABLE ON SUSPENSION) MISSION HOSPITAL, NANNATTUKAVU, POTHANKODU P.O TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 7. THE DIRECTOR OF CBI, CHENNAI UNIT. 8. THE DIRECTOR OF CBI WING, ERNAKULAM UNIT, KERALA. 9. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R7 & 8 R1 TO 4 & 9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 35552 of 2008 G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the husband of the 5th respondent. He was employed abroad. At his instance a crime was registered as crime No.193 of 2008 that his wife was missing. Investigation was conducted into that crime and it is submitted that the wife of the petitioner has already appeared before the learned Magistrate. In these circumstances I find nothing surviving in the grievance that Crime No.193 of 2008 registered under the caption 'woman missing' is not being investigated into properly. 2. What remains is Crime No.231 of 2008, which was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. Investigation at the moment is being conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kazhakkoottam. The petitioner claims to be W.P.C.No. 35552 of 2008 2 aggrieved by the nature and quality of investigation conducted into the said Crime No.231 of 2008, which was registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420, 406 and 379 I.P.C. The 5th respondent, the wife of the petitioner, as also the 6th respondent, allegedly her paramour, with whom she had allegedly eloped, are the accused in that case. The 6th respondent, it is submitted, was a Head Constable in the local police. He has now been placed under suspension. Because of the influence of the said 6th respondent proper investigation is not being conducted. This in short is the grievance raised by the petitioner. 3. A person with a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner, it is now trite, cannot rush to this Court directly with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), it is trite, that such a person like the petitioner, who has a grievance about the inadequate quality of investigation conducted, must first approach the learned Magistrate with his complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Without W.P.C.No. 35552 of 2008 3 and before exhausting the equally efficacious remedy which the petitioner has under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the grievance of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court in the light of the precedents referred above. 3. I am in these circumstances satisfied that it is for the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. raising his grievance about the inadequate quality of investigation conducted. When such a grievance is raised, the learned Magistrate must consider the same in the light of the decisions referred above and issue appropriate directions, if necessary. Needless to say, if the petitioner is dissatisfied with such directions, the option of the petitioner to come to this Court and raise his grievance shall remain unfettered. 4. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm