IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36813 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA MUSLIAR, MANIKOTH AJANOOR VILLAGE HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.36813 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant/victim in a crime registered under Section 308 r/w 34 I.P.C. To put it in a nut shell, the grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted into that crime. The petitioner, inter alia, laments that actually the offence under Section 307 I.P.C is made out. But the police have included only the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. 2. Be that as it may, it is now trite that a person like the petitioner, who wants to air a grievance of unsatisfactory investigation, cannot rush to this Court with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. He must exhaust the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The position is well established now after the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which is followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945]. I am, in these circumstances, not satisfied that it will be proper W.P(C). No.36813 of 2008 2 for this Court to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner straight away. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate directions from the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or later to come to this Court if he is not satisfied with the action taken by the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-