IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6505 of 2007(Y)
1. MARYKUTTY JOSEPH, ALUNKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. A.J.JOSEPH, ALUNKAL HOUSE,
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. XAVIER THOMAS, THENGUMPALLIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No. 6505 of 2007 Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the defacto complainants in a crime
registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and
420 I.P.C. The petitioners had come to this Court with this
petition alleging that a proper investigation is not being
conducted by the Investigating Officer.
2. 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) persons
like the petitioners, who have a grievance about the investigation
conducted cannot rush to this court with an application under
Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
without and before exhausting the remedy available to him under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioners to approach the
learned Magistrate and seek appropriate directions. If the
petitioners’ grievance remains unsatisfied by such approach to the
W.P.C.No. 6505 of 2007
2
learned Magistrate, needless to say, the petitioners can come before
this Court to challenge the action of the Magistrate.
3. The learned Prosecutor submits that as a matter of fact the
investigation is already complete. Final report has already been filed
under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. In the light of that circumstance
also I am satisfied that no further direction need be issued in this writ
petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the right of
the petitioners to move the learned Magistrate to direct further
investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. may be left open. Needless
to say, the petitioners’ right to move the learned Magistrate now for
further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the light of the
decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 929) shall
remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition.
5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm
W.P.C.No. 6505 of 2007
3
R. BASANT, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
W.P.C.No. 6505 of 2007
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners have come to this court complaining about the
inadequate and insufficient investigation conducted in Ext.P3 crime
registered by the police. The police were directed to file a statement and the
statement filed by the Investigating Officer eloquently confirms the
assertion of the petitioner that a proper and efficient investigation has not
been conducted. This court would have thought of entrusting the
investigation to more competent hands, but it is found in the statement that
the present Investigating Officer has taken over the investigation only on
26.3.2007. I am of the opinion that the present Investigator must be
granted some further time to complete the investigation. The Investigating
Officer shall file a statement showing all details and the steps which are
taken after 26.3.2007. Such report shall be filed by 16.7.07. The matter
shall be called on 17.7.2007. The Investigating Officer shall appear before
this Court on that day with the case diary to explain to the court the steps
taken.
2. Hand over copy to the learned Prosecutor.
W.P.C.No. 6505 of 2007
4
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm