IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 508 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.716/2008 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- P.A.NOUSHAD, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN KUTTY HAJI, AGED 37 YEARS, PUZHANGARA ILLATH HOUSE, POST PADOOR, VENGIDANGU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -680 524 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.SABU RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BYSUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 5. SRI.ABDULLA KUTTY, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 60 YEARS, PUTHIYA VEETTIL, PULIYAMTHURUTHU, THALIKKALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. SHAMEER, S/O.ABDULLA KUTTY, AGED 28 YEARS, PUTHIYA VEETTIL, PULIYAMTHURUTHU, THALIKKALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.508 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February 2009 O R D E R Against the petitioner, Annexure-4 FIR has been registered as crime No.716/08 of the Vadanappally Police Station under Sec.385 IPC. Investigation has commenced. The petitioner has come to this Court now with a prayer that the said FIR may be quashed. 2. What is the reason? According to the petitioner, such a crime has been registered against the petitioner and three others solely with the intention of vexation. This Crime is registered on 28/9/08 only as a counter blast against the earlier Crime No.715/09 of the same Police Station i.e., Vadanappally Police Station which was also registered on 28/9/08 alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sec.377 read with Sec.511 IPC. In Crime No.715/08, it is alleged that a close relative of the de facto complainant in Crime No.716/08 is guilty of attempting to commit unnatural offence against the minor children of the de facto complainant. In Annexure-4 FIR it is alleged that the allegations in Annexure-3 FIR are totally false and those allegations are raised with the fraudulent and culpable intention of illegally extracting money from the complainant in Crl.M.C.No.508/09 2 Annexure-4. Investigation in both crimes are pending. The petitioner prays that Annexure-4 FIR may be quashed. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court exercising the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. It is by now trite that this court cannot attempt to resolve complicated and disputed questions of fact in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Exts.A3 and A4 F.I.Rs are registered raising mutually contradictory allegations. Which set of allegation is true and which is false cannot obviously be resolved by this court at this stage in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An alert and efficient investigator will have to collect materials to resolve the controversies raised. I am certainly of the opinion that it would be unnecessary, improper and inexpedient to direct that investigation need not be conducted in either of the two cases registered. There is need for an efficient and honest investigation to resolve the controversy. At any rate, Annexure A4 F.I.R cannot now be quashed, as prayed for, by the petitioner. The petitioner appears to entertain grievances about the quality of investigation Crl.M.C.No.508/09 3 undertaken in these two crimes. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [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 having a grievance like the one raised by the petitioner herein - of inadequate conduct of the investigation, cannot, without and before exhausting the equally efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, rush to this court with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am unable to locate any special or sufficient reason to reckon the instant case as one to which the ordinary rule propounded in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) will not apply. 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner has genuine grievances about the nature of investigation conducted in the two crimes, his option to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.508/09 4 Crl.M.C.No.508/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008