IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1401 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- KUNHIMOIDEEN, S/O.KUNHAMMU, PARAMBIL VEETTIL, VENNIYOOR DESOM, VENNIYOOR AMSOM, THENNALA TALUK, THIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSITANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALANCHERY POLICE STATION. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D. MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.1401 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered at the Valancheri police station for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 365 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the investigation conducted is not proper, adequate or efficient. He prays that appropriate directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945] the prayer in this petition is maintainable. Those decisions are authority for the proposition that a person having a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein - of inadequate conduct of the investigation, cannot, without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy W.P.C.No.1401/09 2 available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, cannot rush to this court with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am unable to locate any special or sufficient reason to reckon the instant case as one to which the ordinary course propounded in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) will not apply. 3. It is for the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and raise his grievance about the inadequate investigation. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must consider the application on merits and take appropriate decision in the light of the above precedents and issue directions under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 4. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. I may hasten to observe that if the grievance of the petitioner remains without redressal even after the learned Magistrate passes orders in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the petitioner's option to come to this court again shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this W.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.1401/09 3 W.P.C.No.1401/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007