High Court Kerala High Court

M.P.Mohammed vs The State Of Kerala & Others on 1 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.P.Mohammed vs The State Of Kerala & Others on 1 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36813 of 2008(G)


1. M.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD.
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE

                        Vs


1. THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :01/01/2009

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                    W.P(C). No.36813 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the defacto complainant/victim in a crime

registered under Section 308 r/w 34 I.P.C. To put it in a nut

shell, the grievance of the petitioner is that no proper

investigation is being conducted into that crime. The petitioner,

inter alia, laments that actually the offence under Section 307

I.P.C is made out. But the police have included only the offence

under Section 308 I.P.C.

2. Be that as it may, it is now trite that a person like the

petitioner, who wants to air a grievance of unsatisfactory

investigation, cannot rush to this Court with applications under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

He must exhaust the equally efficacious alternative remedy

available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The position is

well established now after the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State

of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which is followed by this Court in

Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945].

I am, in these circumstances, not satisfied that it will be proper

W.P(C). No.36813 of 2008 2

for this Court to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner straight away.

3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless

to say, the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the

rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate directions from the

learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or later to come

to this Court if he is not satisfied with the action taken by the

learned Magistrate.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-