High Court Kerala High Court

Mini vs The State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mini vs The State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 6160 of 2008(G)


1. MINI, W/O. VENU, AGED 34 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.L.DEVADAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :21/02/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.

            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                 W.P.(C) No. 6160 OF 2008 G
            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
          Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner’s husband allegedly met with his

death under unnatural and suspicious circumstances. The

police have registered a crime and the investigation is in

progress. The petitioner appears to be dissatisfied with the

quality of investigation undertaken by the investigating officer.

She has, hence, come before this Court with the grievance

that investigation is not being conducted properly. She prays

that appropriate direction may be issued to ensure a proper

investigation.

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 in the circumstances seek directions under Article 226 of

the Constitution from this Court. A person dissatisfied with

WPC.6160/08
: 2 :

the investigation must exhaust his alternative remedies

available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before

coming this Court with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. or

under Article 226 of the Constitution. That position of law is

well settled in the decision in Sakri Vasu.

3. In the light of the decision in Sakri Vasu, there is

no justification or necessity to invoke the powers under Article

226 of the Constitution at this stage. The petitioner must seek

appropriate directions from the Magistrate or raise his

objections against the final report filed.

4. With the above observations, this writ petition is

dismissed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks