IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 509 of 2009()
1. ROUSHINA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.509 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner, the alleged victim of a crime of rape, in
respect of which incident crime No.335/2007 of Kadavanthra
police station has been registered has come to this court raising
a grievance that no proper investigation is being conducted into
that crime. That crime was earlier investigated by the 2nd
respondent. The investigation is now entrusted with the 3rd
respondent, a very senior officer of the Police. Investigation is in
progress. Final report has not been filed. The accused in this
case has come to this court with a prayer to quash the crime
registered; but another Bench of this Court by Annexure A1
order had turned down the said request and dismissed the said
Crl.M.C.
2. What is the direction that the petitioner now seeks
from this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C? The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction to the
present investigating officer, the 3rd respondent to submit the
final report within a stipulated period of time.
3. I am afraid that such a direction cannot now be issued
by this court. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P
Crl.M.C.No.509/09 2
& Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] as followed by this court in
Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT
945] it is trite that a person having a grievance about the quality
of investigation cannot rush to this court with applications under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482
Cr.P.C. I am unable to locate any special or sufficient reason to
reckon the instant case as one to which the ordinary rule
propounded in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) will not apply. Needless to
say, every police officer must make attempt to complete the
investigation as expeditiously as possible. But a more specific
direction cannot be issued by this court, the petitioner having
not exhausted the equally efficacious alternative remedy
available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed but with
the observation that if the grievance of the petitioner remains
without redressal even after the learned Magistrate passes
orders in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the
petitioner’s option to come to this court again shall remain
unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.509/09 3
Crl.M.C.No.509/09 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008