IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8901 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOHN GEORGE, S/O. JOHN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, MANJULLOOR KARA,MANJULLOOR VILLAGE MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(ONAKKOOR) SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.MANJU RAJAN SRI.N.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, THODUPUZHA. 3. MARIA DAS, S/O. MICHEL, SANTHI NIVAS, MUNAR COLONY ROAD, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.8901 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted by the Investigating Officer into Crime 86 of 2007 of Devikulam Police Station, which was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by him before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner laments that this is being done by the 1st respondent because of the political clout which the accused persons enjoy. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued by this Court invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], the petitioner is justified in approaching this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the petitioner apprehends that even if the learned Magistrate were to direct the 1st respondent to W.P(C).No.8901 of 2008 2 conduct a proper investigation, nothing worthwhile is likely to come out of such a direction as the 1st respondent has already shown his reluctance to make a proper investigation. 3. I am of the opinion that, that stand by itself would not justify this Court entertaining this Writ Petition notwithstanding the specific directions in Sakiri Vasu. The learned Magistrate has got jurisdictional competence as explained in Sakiri Vasu to insist that a proper investigation is conducted by the 1st respondent. Such investigation can be monitored, supervised or even interfered with in an appropriate case, it is evident, after the dictum in Sakiri Vasu. In Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police, it has been explained that in an appropriate case the Magistrate can certainly direct the superior officials of the police to invoke their jurisdiction under Section 36 Cr.P.C. 4. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that applying the dictum in Sakiri Vasu, this Court must refrain from entertaining this Writ Petition. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions under W.P(C).No.8901 of 2008 3 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, in such event, must certainly consider the grievance and issue appropriate directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as explained in Sakiri Vasu. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-