High Court Kerala High Court

Beena Kurian vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Beena Kurian vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 6197 of 2008(K)


1. BEENA KURIAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.

4. KURIAN P. @ ROY,

5. THE PASSPORT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SMTMIJI JOHN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/02/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                W.P.(C) No. 6197 OF 2008 K
           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
          Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the de facto complainant in crime

No.45/08 of Pambady police station, Kottayam. The

grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is

being conducted into that crime. The delay is likely to prove

fatal to the petitioner’s cause. In these circumstances, it is

prayed that the jurisdiction under Article 226 may be invoked

and appropriate directions for expeditious investigation to the

police may be issued.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was

requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakri

Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] the petitioner

can approach this Court for issue of direction under Article

226 of the Constitution. He has not approached the learned

Magistrate for issue of any directions. No satisfactory

explanation is offered. I am satisfied that the petitioner must

approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate

WPC.6197/08
: 2 :

direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court

has specifically and definitely wanted that the High Courts

should not encourage persons rushing to this Court with

petitions under section 482 Cr.p.C. and Article 226 of the

Constitution without and before exhausting the remedy which

is available to them under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. This writ petition is, in these circumstances,

dismissed with the clarification that the dismissal of this writ

petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to

approach the learned Magistrate and seek directions for

expeditious and proper investigation. The learned Magistrate

must consider such grievance of the petitioner in the light of

the observations in Sakri Vasu and issue appropriate

directions.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks