IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18083 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAMESH KUMAR.N, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUNNI.N NAMBIDIYATTIL HOUSE, MOOKUTHALA.P.O, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL SRI.NOORJI NOUSHAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEARD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.18083 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 468 I.P.C. Crime was registered as early as in 2006. The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted into the crime by the police. It is hence prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to ensure the conduct of a proper investigation by a specialized agency. 2. In the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], the petitioner must explain why the petitioner approached this Court directly without and before approaching the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It appears to be trite now that a complainant who is aggrieved by the quality of an investigation cannot approach this Court with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India without and before exhausting the efficacious W.P(C). No.18083 of 2008 2 alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as explained in the Sakiri Vasu. Not that this Court lacks jurisdictional competence, but compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding the unused alternative efficacious avenue under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. I am unable to find any such special reasons in this case. The petitioner, I am satisfied, must approach the learned Magistrate with her grievance with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and if the petitioner does so appear before the learned Magistrate, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must pass appropriate orders in the light of the 2 decisions referred above. 4. With the above observations, this W.P(C) is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-