IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18321 of 2010(Q) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJESH.P., S/O.SHANKARAN, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, PUTHIYATHERU. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION. 3. SHINOJ, S/O.DIVAKARAN, VELUTHERI HOUSE, KOTTAKUNNU. 4. SANOOP, S/O.HARIDASAN, ARIPODIYAN VALAPPIL, PANANKAVU. 5. PRAMOD.K.V., KARADAN HOUSE, A.K.G.ROAD. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.HRITHIK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18321 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.325 of 2010 of Valapattanam Police Station seeks a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Kannur to consider Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- The petitioner is an automobile mechanic conducting his own shop selling automobile spare parts under the name and style of “Anjaneya Auto body Spares” at Kannur. On 5/4/2010 the petitioner's shop was set ablaze by respondents 3 to 5 herein. The above occurrence was witnessed by the local people as well. On a complaint preferred before the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Valappatanam Police Station, he registered a case as Crime No.325/2010 under Section 425 of I.P.C. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation before the first respondent Superintendent of Police, Kannur to the effect that the W.P.(C)No.18321/2010 : 2 : investigation conducted by the second respondent was unsatisfactory since even the damage sustained to the autorikshaw which was partly gutted by fire had not been shown. No action is forthcoming on Ext.P1 representation. Hence this writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the assumption made by the petitioner that the offence which is registered by the second respondent is one punishable under Section 425 I.P.C. is wrong. Actually the offence registered is one punishable under Section 435 I.P.C. and investigation of the case is still in progress. 4. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Punjab (2008 (1)KLT 724 (SC) the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Magistrate concerned for reliefs including an order for monitoring the investigation if need be. Hence without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Magistrate for appropriate reliefs, this writ petition is disposed of. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj