IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6300 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.SUJATHAN, KOTTAPPURATHU HOUSE, KOTTARKAVU MURI, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.P.DEEPTHI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 6300 of 2008-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.22/2006 of Mavelikkara Police Station registered under Sections 457 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had come to this Court earlier with a grievance that no proper investigation was being conducted. In the meantime, negative final report was filed and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as per order dated 10/01/2008 in W.P.(C) No.1021/2008. Petitioner now wants a further investigation to be conducted. Petitioner claims to have submitted Ext.P7 application before a Director General of Police on 11/01/2008. No action has been taken. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition. 2. The person on whose complaint the crime has been registered and in which crime the Investigator has filed a negative final report has specific alternative remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such person can W.P.(C) No.6300/2008-Y 2 appear before the learned Magistrate and raise objections against the negative final report submitted by the Investigator. He can request the court not to accept such final report. He can request the court to direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Such person can also file a private complaint and offer to substantiate his grievance before the learned Magistrate. The decision in Sakiri Vasu v.State of U.P [2008 AIR SCWA 309] is authority for the proposition that without exhausting such alternative remedies which are available to such aggrieved persons, they should not be encouraged to rush to this Court with applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. I am in these circumstances satisfied that this writ petition by the petitioner cannot be admitted and entertained. Petitioner must be directed to approach the learned Magistrate and raise his objections against the final report filed. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) ms