IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15334 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOSEPH A.J., AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.THE LATE A.J.JOHN, ARUPARAYIL HOUSE, ROSES COTTAGE, SOUTH MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 001. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.15334 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the father of the first accused in crime No.599/2006 of Chengannoor police station registered under Section 395 I.P.C. The said crime was allegedly committed on 03/12/2006. An F.I.R was also registered on the same day. Petitioner's son has been named in the F.I.R as the first accused. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. Petitioner is aged 62 years. Petitioner's son is an adult. Petitioner has come to this court with this petition now claiming to be deeply interested in his son raising a grievance about the inadequate, improper and insufficient investigation conducted by the police. 2. I am not going in to the technicality as to how this petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable when his son has not chosen to file such petition or advance such a grievance before court. Be that as it may, the crux of the grievance is that proper investigation is not being conducted by the police. 3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] the law is trite that the petitioner with such a grievance cannot rush to this court without and before exhausting the remedy available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to approach the learned Magistrate with a request to ensure a proper W.P.C.No.15334/08 2 and efficient investigation. No exceptional reasons are shown to exist. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are exceptional reasons in this case to justify this court entertaining this writ petition notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309]. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has produced certain documents before the investigating officer which if considered in the proper light would have obliged the investigator to discontinue the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. That, I am afraid, cannot be reckoned as a sufficient exceptional circumstance to justify the invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Section 226 notwithstanding the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309]. If any person is aggrieved by the quality of investigation conducted he must certainly approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I find no reason to entertain this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner now. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the right of any person aggrieved to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.15334/08 3 W.P.C.No.15334/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007