IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6651 of 2006(P) ------------------------- CC.548/2002 of J.M.F.C., ADOOR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ G.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS, "ROHINI HOUSE", KODUMON, EDATHITTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHAITTA. ADDL.3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M.J.EMIL, MNIMANDIRAM HOUSE, KADAMPANAD P.O., MANNADI, ADOOR. 5. SAJITH EMIL, W/O.M.J.EMIL, MNIMANDIRAM HOUSE, KADAMPANAD P.O., MANNADI, ADOOR. (ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3,4 & 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1723/2007 DATED 05/02/2007) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAI GEORGE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.6651 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had filed a complaint alleging that respondents 4 and 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. That complaint was filed as early as in 2002. That complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted and final report was filed by the police. In 2002, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the final report filed by the police and a case was registered. It would appear that the accused had come to this court with a prayer for quashing of proceedings; but the said prayer failed and the said proceedings was dismissed. 2. It was then the turn of the petitioner/ de facto complainant to come before this court again in 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation has been conducted. He wants a further investigation to be conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is his grievance that no proper investigation has been conducted by the investigating W.P.C.No.6651/06 2 officers and in these circumstances further investigation may be entrusted to some superior officer or any specialised agency. This, in short, is the prayer made. 3. The application is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. I have heard the counsel. 4. It is by now trite that a person aggrieved by the quality of investigation has alternative remedies available under law before the learned Magistrate and it is not necessary for such a petitioner aggrieved by the quality of investigation to come before this court and invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This has been made crystal clear in the decision in Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309]. Inasmuch as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to apply before the learned Magistrate for issue of appropriate directions under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner for issue of directions for further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. W.P.C.No.6651/06 3 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate for appropriate directions regarding further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, needless to say, must consider such application on merits and pass appropriate orders. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.6651/06 4 W.P.C.No.6651/06 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007