IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37345 of 2007(U)
1. SAROJINI, D/O. LATE NARAYANI,
... Petitioner
2. MINI GANGADHARAN, D/O. SAROJINI,
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH
For Respondent :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/02/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
W.P.C.No.37345 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have come to this court with a prayer to
direct conduct of further investigation in a crime registered at
the instance of the second petitioner.
2. The F.I statement lodged by the second petitioner led
to the registration of crime No.162/07 of Paravoor police station.
The same was investigated and Ext.P6 final report was filed
raising allegations against the accused persons.
3. About the same incident, Ext.P4 F.I.statement was
lodged and crime No.163/07 was registered at the same police
station. After completing the investigation in the said crime
Ext.P7 final report was filed against the petitioners and others.
4. The petitioners have now come before this court.
What is their grievance? The crux of the grievance is that
Exts.P1 and P4 complaints have not been properly investigated.
Because of such improper investigation, no proper final report
has been filed on Ext.P1 F.I.R and an improper final report
raising allegations against the petitioners has been filed after
W.P.C.No.37345/07 2
investigation of Ext.P4 F.I.R. This in short is the grievance. The
petitioners want this court to issue directions under Section 173
(8) Cr.P.C invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction
available under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. It is trite that powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution have to be invoked only in exceptional cases where
the circumstances compellingly point to the need to invoke such
powers. Improper investigation of Exts.P1 and P4 crimes, even if
those allegations were accepted entirely, can be remedied by a
proper application before the learned Magistrate for conduct of
further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is by now
trite that the courts suo motu or at the instance of the
investigating officer or at the instance of the de facto
complainant or the accused can invoke such powers under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
6. Having not chosen to approach the learned Magistrate
with the request for direction for further investigation under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, I find absolutely no merit in the prayer
made by the petitioners to invoke the powers under Article 226
of the Constitution for directing a further investigation under
W.P.C.No.37345/07 3
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C into crime Nos.162 and 163 of 2007 of
Paravoor police station.
7. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed.
I make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in
any way fetter the option of the petitioners to make appropriate
application before the learned Magistrate under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.37345/07 4
W.P.C.No.37345/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007