IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4366 of 2008()
1. HABEEBRAHMAN,OORAKOTTIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/11/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4366 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
Against the petitioner crime No.729 of 2008 has been
registered by the police. It is submitted at the Bar that in that
crime it is alleged that the petitioner’s vehicle was involved in an
offence relating to illicit transportation of river sand. That crime
was registered on 13.10.2008.
2. According to the petitioner no proper investigation is
being conducted into that crime. The petitioner had approached
the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and Annex.1
application was submitted before the Superintendent of Police.
The same has been acknowledged on 14.10.2008. In spite of the
fact that Annex.1 complaint was received by the Superintendent
of Police, no proper investigation is being conducted into the
crime registered. This in short is the grievance of the petitioner.
He prays that a proper investigation may be directed to be
conducted in the light of Annex.1 complaint already submitted
by him to the Superintendent of Police.
Crl.M.C.No. 4366 of 2008
2
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 aggrieved by the
quality of the investigation conducted by the police into a crime must
seek appropriate direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. from the
Magistrate concerned, who, it is held, has the duty/obligation to
monitor and supervise the investigation. It is trite that 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such
person must ordinarily exhaust the remedy available to him under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if
the petitioner approaches the learned Magistrate with an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate must consider the
same and take appropriate decision in the matter.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge
Crl.M.C.No. 4366 of 2008
3