IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33530 of 2008(N)
1. ASHI ASOKAN REPRESENTED BY HER POWER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. SUBU.S.BABU,HAVING ADDRESS AT POST BOX.
5. THE AMBASSADOR, INDIAN EMBASSY, U.A.E.
For Petitioner :SMT.K.KUSUMAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No. 33530 of 2008 N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.86
of 2007 of Poonthura Police Station, Trivandrum. She has a
pathetic tale to narrate. She has been deceived and defrauded by
her husband, from whom she has now obtained an order of
divorce. F.I.R. was registered against her husband alleging
offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. and
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. To cut a long
story short, the grievance of the petitioner is that no proper
investigation is being conducted into that crime.
2. The grievance of the petitioner does arouse sympathy
and compassion. I am not adverting to the detailed averments
regarding the alleged injustice done to her. But the petitioner
appears to have come to this Court without and before exhausting
the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to her to
W.P.C.No. 33530 of 2008
2
approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
complaining about the inadequate investigation.
3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008
(1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi
Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), a person with a grievance
like the instant one raised by the petitioner cannot come to this Court
directly and claim invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extra ordinary constitutional
jurisdiction unswe Article 226 of the Constitution. Such person must
ordinarily exhaust the remedy available to her under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., it is trite.
4. This petition filed by the petitioner must in these
circumstances fail for the short reason that the petitioner has not
exhausted the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to her
before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The fact
that the petitioner is employed abroad now is no reason for this Court
to treat this case as an exceptional one, to which the dictum in Sakiri
Vasu (supra) need not be applied. The petitioner can, through her
W.P.C.No. 33530 of 2008
3
counsel, apply to the learned Magistrate for issue of appropriate
directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If the petitioner’s grievance
remains without redressal after the learned Magistrate passes orders,
needless to say, the petitioner can challenge the same before this Court
in appropriate proceedings.
5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
But I must note that whether with directions or without the directions
of the learned Magistrate, it is incumbent on the Investigating Officer
to ensure that a proper, efficient and efficacious investigation is
conducted in Crime No.86 of 2007.
6. Copy of the judgment shall be communicated to the
Investigating Officer through the learned Govt. Pleader.
7. Issue copy to the learned Prosecutor.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm