IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5166 of 2008(M)
1. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SALIM V.S.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C).No. 5166 of 2008 M
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was
involved in a traffic accident. He was riding his two wheeler.
The said two wheeler collided against another two wheeler. The
petitioner has a grievance that not he, but the rider of the other
two wheeler is negligent. The police has registered a crime on
the basis of the F.I. statement lodged by the rider of the other two
wheeler. Investigation is pending. According to the petitioner
the boot lies on the other leg. The police are not conducting any
investigation. Though the petitioner had approached the
Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police, no
effective action is being taken to properly investigate the crime.
The petitioner therefore prays that appropriate direction may be
issued to the Investigating Officer.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to
explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State
W.P(C).No. 5166 of 2008
2
of U.P. (2008 AIR SCW 309) the petitioner is justified in coming to
this Court seeking direction under Article 226 of the Constitution
without and before approaching the learned Magistrate, no satisfactory
response is received. If the petitioner has a grievance that the other
rider was culpably negligent or rash, the petitioner is at liberty to file a
complaint before the Investigating Officer. If no action is taken on
such complaint, he is at liberty to approach the Superintendent of
Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. Even then if there is no response,
he must file a private complaint before the learned Magistrate and
persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
or in his discretion to forward the complaint to the police under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate can also be requested, if he chooses
the former course, to direct conduct of an investigation under Section
200 Cr.P.C. When these options are available to the petitioner, they
must be reckoned as efficacious alternate remedy and the attempt of the
petitioner to come to this Court directly without and before exhausting
the said alternate remedy has got to be discouraged. The position has
W.P(C).No. 5166 of 2008
3
been made crystal clear in the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra). I am
satisfied that no direction deserves to be issued in this writ petition.
3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm