IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2335 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 297/2008 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION) ............. PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUNJIRAMAN, KOLLYVAYAL HOUSE, CHEKADI, PALAKOLLY P.O., PULPALLY, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.2335 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the parent of a minor girl, who was found missing from her school. On the complaint of the petitioner, a crime has been registered as Crime No.297 of 2008 of Ambalavayal Police Station. Investigation is going on. The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted by the police. The petitioner has hence come to this Court with this Writ Petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I am afraid, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained. After 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], it is trite that a person, with a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein of inadequate and insufficient investigation cannot rush to this Court with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy available W.P(C). No.2335 of 2009 2 to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I find no special features in this case which can persuade me to reckon this case as an exception to the rule adumbrated in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. 3. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate with an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions referred above. Needless again to mention that if the petitioner is aggrieved by such decision of the Magistrate, his option to come to this Court again shall also remain unfettered. 4. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-