In this writ petition concerning non-investigation under the IPC, the Court dismissed the plea. It held that the petitioner must exhaust alternative statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226, citing Sakiri Vasu.
Petitioner directed to approach the learned Magistrate to raise objections against the final report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929
WP(C).No. 6300 of 2008(Y)
PETITIONER:
S.SUJATHAN, KOTTAPPURATHU HOUSE, KOTTARKAVU MURI, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.P.DEEPTHI
RESPONDENTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI GIKKU JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.BASANT, J.
W.P.C.No. 6300 of 2008-Y
Dated this the 22nd day of February 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.22/2006 of Mavelikkara Police Station registered under Sections 457 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had come to this Court earlier with a grievance that no proper investigation was being conducted. In the meantime, negative final report was filed and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as per order dated 10/01/2008 in W.P.(C) No.1021/2008. Petitioner now wants a further investigation to be conducted. Petitioner claims to have submitted Ext.P7 application before a Director General of Police on 11/01/2008. No action has been taken. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.6300/2008-Y
2
appear before the learned Magistrate and raise objections against the negative final report submitted by the Investigator. He can request the court not to accept such final report. He can request the court to direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Such person can also file a private complaint and offer to substantiate his grievance before the learned Magistrate. The decision in Sakiri Vasu v.State of U.P [2008 AIR SCWA 309] is authority for the proposition that without exhausting such alternative remedies which are available to such aggrieved persons, they should not be encouraged to rush to this Court with applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
ms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for directing further investigation can be admitted when alternative statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. are available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Referred¶24
Sakiri Vasu v.State of U.P [2008 AIR SCWA 309] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.SUJATHAN
STATE OF KERALA
R.BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
