IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27581 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE AT KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SERVICE BRANCH ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE SRI.DESI MATTHAI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY, COCHIN - 682 030. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY, COCHIN-682 030. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.27581 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT On the complaint of the petitioner, Crime No.415 of 2006 of Thrikkakkara Police Station was initially registered. The same was later transferred to the Cochin City Central Police Station and Crime No.1330 of 2006 has been re-registered. In the complaint, allegations are raised of offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120 B, 420 and 471 I.P.C. According to the petitioner, no proper investigation is conducted into this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged has interstate ramifications and in these circumstances serious and expeditious investigation is not being conducted by the police. He has hence come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of appropriate directions to expeditiously complete the investigation. 2. I am afraid that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], it is trite that a person, with grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein, cannot rush to this Court with petitions under W.P(C). No.27581 of 2008 2 Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has a reservoir of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and can issue appropriate directions to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. Ordinarily and normally without and before exhausting such equally efficacious remedy which is available for a person having a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein, he cannot come to this Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I find no extra ordinary circumstance which can persuade this Court to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. 3. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate with an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions referred above. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge