IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 11798 of 2008(D)
1. K.G.SANKARA NARAYANAN @ KUTTAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - IDUKKI
3. N.K.RAJAN,S/O.KUMARAN,NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE
4. N.K.RAVEENDRAN,S/O.KUTTAPPAN,
5. MOHAN THOMAS,NEOOIYANIYIL,RAJAKUMARI
6. ELDHO T.PAUL,S/O.KUMARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 11798 OF 2008 D
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the de facto complainant in crime
No.139/07 registered at the Santhanpara police station
alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under
sections 120B, 468 and 471 IPC. That crime has been
registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the
petitioner before the Magistrate and referred to the police
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Respondents 3 to 6 are the
accused in the said crime. Investigation is in progress.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court now with a
grievance that no proper investigation is being conducted.
The petitioner prays that a proper investigation may be
directed to be conducted.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was
requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri
WPC.11798/08
: 2 :
Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] the petitioner is
justified in seeking directions from this Court under Article 226
COI. That decision is authority for the proposition that the
Magistrate has sufficient powers under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
to issue appropriate directions to ensure the conduct of a
proper investigation. That decision is authority for the further
proposition that a person with such a grievance – of improper
conduct of the investigation, cannot and should not be
permitted ordinarily to approach this Court with applications
under section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 COI without and
before exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Such an application cannot be
entertained, it is now trite.
4. The petitioner admittedly has not approached the
learned Magistrate with any request under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that in the light
of the decision in Sakiri Vasu which is followed by the
decision of this Court in Vasanthi Devi Vs. S.I. of Police
WPC.11798/08
: 3 :
[2008 (1) KLT 945] the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek
such relief from this Court in this petition under Article 226
COI in the absence of any satisfactory or compelling reasons.
5. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. I make
it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way
fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned
Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and seek appropriate
directions for a proper investigation of the case. Needless to
say, in case such application is filed, the learned Magistrate
must consider such application in the light of the decision in
Sakiri Vasu and issue appropriate directions.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks