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. 5166 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 55 YEARS, RAFEEK MANZIL, VAYALA P.O., PARACODE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 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. 5166 of 2008 M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was involved in a traffic accident. He was riding his two wheeler. The said two wheeler collided against another two wheeler. The petitioner has a grievance that not he, but the rider of the other two wheeler is negligent. The police has registered a crime on the basis of the F.I. statement lodged by the rider of the other two wheeler. Investigation is pending. According to the petitioner the boot lies on the other leg. The police are not conducting any investigation. Though the petitioner had approached the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police, no effective action is being taken to properly investigate the crime. The petitioner therefore prays that appropriate direction may be issued to the Investigating Officer. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State W.P(C).No. 5166 of 2008 2 of U.P. (2008 AIR SCW 309) the petitioner is justified in coming to this Court seeking direction under Article 226 of the Constitution without and before approaching the learned Magistrate, no satisfactory response is received. If the petitioner has a grievance that the other rider was culpably negligent or rash, the petitioner is at liberty to file a complaint before the Investigating Officer. If no action is taken on such complaint, he is at liberty to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. Even then if there is no response, he must file a private complaint before the learned Magistrate and persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or in his discretion to forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate can also be requested, if he chooses the former course, to direct conduct of an investigation under Section 200 Cr.P.C. When these options are available to the petitioner, they must be reckoned as efficacious alternate remedy and the attempt of the petitioner to come to this Court directly without and before exhausting the said alternate remedy has got to be discouraged. The position has W.P(C).No. 5166 of 2008 3 been made crystal clear in the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra). I am satisfied that no direction deserves to be issued in this writ petition. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm