IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 509 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.335/2007 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------- ROUSHINA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.NAZAR, PURAKKULATH HOUSE, 37/1588 P.BASE NAGAR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI - 20. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.I. OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.335/2007 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 3. MR.P.A.JOHNSON, DYSP OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM BUILDING, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.509 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, the alleged victim of a crime of rape, in respect of which incident crime No.335/2007 of Kadavanthra police station has been registered has come to this court raising a grievance that no proper investigation is being conducted into that crime. That crime was earlier investigated by the 2nd respondent. The investigation is now entrusted with the 3rd respondent, a very senior officer of the Police. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed. The accused in this case has come to this court with a prayer to quash the crime registered; but another Bench of this Court by Annexure A1 order had turned down the said request and dismissed the said Crl.M.C. 2. What is the direction that the petitioner now seeks from this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction to the present investigating officer, the 3rd respondent to submit the final report within a stipulated period of time. 3. I am afraid that such a direction cannot now be issued by this court. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P Crl.M.C.No.509/09 2 & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945] it is trite that a person having a grievance about the quality of investigation cannot rush to this court with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am unable to locate any special or sufficient reason to reckon the instant case as one to which the ordinary rule propounded in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) will not apply. Needless to say, every police officer must make attempt to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. But a more specific direction cannot be issued by this court, the petitioner having not exhausted the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed but with the observation that if the grievance of the petitioner remains without redressal even after the learned Magistrate passes orders in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the petitioner's option to come to this court again shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.509/09 3 Crl.M.C.No.509/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008