IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22384 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.P.NANDAKUMAR, S/O.LATE K.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, CHIEF EDITOR, CRIME FORTNIGHTLY, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE,RESIDING AT 24 / 861-F, PATHIYERIPARAMB ROAD, VALAYANAD VILLAGE, WARD 24, POST MANKAVE, KOZHIKODE TALIK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 010. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION POST, KANNUR, PIN-670 002. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, CIVIL STATION POST, KANNUR, PIN-670 002. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, POST NEELESWARAM, KASARAGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 314. 6. KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, NEAR LOURDES CHURCH, PMG, PATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004. 7. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION,KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, NEAR LOURDES CHURCH, PMG, PATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004. 8. SRI.P.SASI, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, POST KEEZHARA, MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 301. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.22384/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN WP(C)NO.10980/2011 ALONG WITH ITS EXHIBITS. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2011 IN WP(C)NO.10980/2011. P3 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21/06/2011 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS. P4 COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 21/06/2011, EVIDENCING THAT LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21/06/2011 ARE SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS. P5 COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS, RECEIVED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER'S COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT PETITIONER, EVIDENCING THAT LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21/06/2011 ARE RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P6 COPY OF THE OFFICIAL DIRECTION LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BY THE HOME SECRETARY DATED 27/06/2011(LETTER NO.47523/JI/2011/HOME), RECEIVED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.22384 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had approached this Court seeking similar reliefs in W.P(C) No.10980 of 2011. There, the prayers were to direct respondents 2 to 5 to dispose of Exts.P3 to P6, representations (marked in the said proceeding) within a time to be stipulated by this Court, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to register a case under appropriate law and for due investigation against the acts (allegedly) committed by the 6th respondent therein (who is the 8th respondent herein). Certain other reliefs were also prayed for in the said Writ Petition. This Court after hearing learned counsel for petitioner and the Government Pleader held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India ([2007] 6 SCC 171) no direction could be issued to the police authorities to register a case and that the remedy of the person aggrieved by the police not registering a case on his complaint (alleging commission of cognizable offence) is to approach the W.P(C) No.22384 of 2011 -: 2 :- Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter as provided under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) by filing a complaint. When it was pointed out that certain representations have already made to the police authorities concerned, this Court observed in paragraph 6 of the judgment in the said Writ Petition that if any person has made representation to such authorities as petitioner claims such authorities have to look into the matter and dispose of the same having regard to the factual and legal situation concerning the matter. This Court observed that there is no reason to think that those authorities will not discharge that responsibility so that any direction is to be issued. With the above observation the said Writ Petition was closed. 2. Petitioner claims to have issued notice through lawyer to respondents 1 to 6 requiring them to take necessary action on the representations stated to be given to them. According to the petitioner, in spite of the lawyer notice, no action has been taken on the representations. 3. Learned counsel submitted that this Court disposed of W.P(C) No.10980 of 2011 with the observation that if any such representation is made to the appropriate authorities there is no W.P(C) No.22384 of 2011 -: 3 :- reason to think that the authorities concerned will not dispose of the same but that observation has not been complied so far. 4. Assuming that the police authorities did not act on the representations said to be made by petitioner, it is not as if petitioner is without any remedy. In Ext.P2, judgment in W.P.(C) No.10980 of 2011 also this Court had pointed out referring to the decision of the Supreme Court that petitioner is not without remedy in that if he wished to set the law in motion relating to commission of a cognizable offence he can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a complaint under Sec.190 read with Sec.200 of the Code. I must also bear in mind that if any such complaint is preferred it is within the power of the jurisdictional Magistrate either to proceed under Sec.200 of the Code in which case also it is open to the learned Magistrate to call for a report from the police under Sec.202 of the Code, or direct an investigation by the police concerned under Sec.156(3) of the Code. When such statutory remedy is available to petitioner if he wished to set the law in motion and particularly in the light of Ext.P2, judgment already passed by this Court, there is no reason to interfere in the matter as requested by petitioner. W.P(C) No.22384 of 2011 -: 4 :- Resultantly leaving petitioner to the remedy available to him under law, this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv