IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29626 of 2009(Q) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SAROJINI R., W/O.MANIYAN, CHETTIKUNNU THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VAZHICHAL P.O., OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANIYAN, CHETTIKUNNU THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VAZHICHAL P.O., OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, STATE WOMEN'S CELL, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VASU, KULANTHINKARA VEEDU, MARANELLUR, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C).No. 29626 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 12th day of November,2009 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to conduct a proper and effective investigation on Ext.P2 complaint filed before the second respondent Circle Inspector of Police. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government pleader were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that second respondent should have registered an F.I.R and then investigated the case and as it was not done, in such circumstance, a direction is to be issued for registration of the case and proper investigation of the complaint. 4. Learned Government pleader submitted that an inquiry was conducted on Ext.P2 petition by the third respondent and it is found that no cognizable offence was made out. 5. When the case of the petitioners is that they had filed a complaint before Circle Inspector and no W.P.(C)29626/2009 2 action is taken and not even a case was registered, remedy of the petitioners is to approach the concerned Magistrate by filing a complaint. When such a complaint is filed, Magistrate will either conduct an inquiry by himself as provided under section 200 or 202 of Cr.P.C or send the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.(2008(1) KLT 724), petitioners are not entitled to approach this court under Article 226, without approaching the Magistrate first. As they are entitled to file a complaint under section 156(3), I find no reason to give any directions. With liberty to move the Magistrate under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006