IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29275 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- REMANI.T., THADANGATTU VAYAL HOUSE, ERANHIKKAL P.O., ELATHUR, POURASAMITHY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELATHUR POLICE STATION, ELATHUR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 3. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., 5TH FLOOR, M SONS ARCADE, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 29275 of 2008-I ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the complainant in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Sec.379 read with Sec.34 IPC. The petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution complaining about the inadequate and improper investigation in that crime. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution. 2. 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 a person with a grievance like the one aired by the petitioner in this petition must first exhaust the equally efficacious remedy under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Without W.P.(c) No. 29275 of 2008 -: 2 :- and before doing that, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court in an application under Art.226 of the Constitution or under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Of course, if exceptional reasons are there, the jurisdictional competence of this Court to entertain such application is not taken away. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded to agree that any such exceptional reasons do exist. It is for the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions. If the petitioner makes such an application, needless to say, the learned Magistrate, following the precedents referred above, must pass appropriate orders on merits. Needless further to say that if the petitioner is not satisfied with such action, the option of the petitioner to come before this Court shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. 3. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed; but with the above specific observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 29275 of 2008 -: 3 :-