IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37337 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 488/2008 OF THE CHERTHALA POLICE STATION) ............. PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- MADHUKUTTAN S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS MADHURIMA,PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH, PALLIPPURAM P.O.,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S.U. NAZER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 37337 of 2008-T ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.380 IPC. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner had come to this Court for anticipatory bail and the bail Bench of this Court by order dated 4/9/08 in B.A.No.5375/08 has dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner has again come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. What is his grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper investigation is being conducted. According to him, the Investigating Officer, who is in a position to seize the stolen gold ornaments which are allegedly available in a jewellery shop as indicated from the order passed in the W.P.(c) No. 37337 of 2008-T -: 2 :- anticipatory bail application has not been effected the seizure. 3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) which is followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), it is trite that a person who is dissatisfied about the quality of the investigation conducted must seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Such persons cannot rush to this Court with petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. or Art.226 of the Constitution. The equally efficacious alternative remedy available under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exhausted before such persons come to this Court with a prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent or constitutional jurisdiction. 4. In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that any directions deserve to be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution in this petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But 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 under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ W.P.(c) No. 37337 of 2008-T -: 3 :-