IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5021 of 2008(W) ------------------------- CC.286/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II,PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MOHANAN S/O. KUNHACHAN AGED 52 YEARS, POYKAYIL VEETIL KUNDALASSERI, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PALAKKAD 2. C.I.OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 62/2006) PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.5021 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the de facto complainant in crime No.62/06 registered at the Kongad police station, Palakkad. In that complaint, he had raised allegations of matrimonial cruelty against his deceased daughter by her husband Suresh S/o.Ramakrishnan. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate and a case is pending as C.C.No.286/2006 before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad. The prosecution is launched under Section 498A I.P.C. 2. According to the petitioner, the final report has been filed without any proper investigation. When the petitioner received summons as witness in that case, i.e. C.C.No.286/06, the petitioner wanted the Prosecutor to ensure that a further investigation is conducted. The Prosecutor or the investigating officer have not taken any steps. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to this court with a request that W.P.C.No.5021/08 2 directions may be issued invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct further investigation in the matter. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] said directions can be issued. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and make appropriate request for the conduct of further investigation. The petitioner must explain such request before the learned Magistrate and seek further directions from the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate is invested with sufficient powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C to direct further investigation at the instance of the petitioner if sufficient grounds are made out. Without and before the petitioner seeks such remedy, I am satisfied that it is not necessary for this court to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue any directions. Inasmuch as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to move the learned Magistrate with the prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that it is not necessary to issue any directions invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. W.P.C.No.5021/08 3 4. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed but it is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate for issue of appropriate directions under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. If such request is made, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider such request and pass appropriate orders on merits. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.5021/08 4 W.P.C.No.5021/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007