Dismissed

Shiju V.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2022WP(Crl.)/406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner, a vehicle owner, sought registration of a criminal case against his vehicle takers. The Court held the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy before the Magistrate under Section 156 Cr.P.C. to secure registration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to register FIR and arrest accused dismissed; petitioner directed to approach Magistrate.

Shiju V.S. Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(CRL.) NO. 406 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SHIJU V.S.
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. SIMON MANUEL, VENGADU HOUSE, KARINGAMTHURUTH,
KONGARAPPILLY P.O., KOONAMMAVU, NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM-683 518

¶7

BY ADV T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001

¶10

2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)ALUVA POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-683 101

¶11

3JIBIN
AGED 42 YEARS
VACHANAM TRAVELS, THOPPUMPADY,
MUNDANVELI, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 507

¶12

4SUBIN
AGED 35 YEARS
SREELAKSHMI TRAVELS,
THALAYOLAPARMABU KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 605

¶13

5VINOD
AGED 42 YEARS
SREEVALSAM DEVI TRAVELS,
KALIYIKKAVALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 502

¶14

BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶15

ADV M P PRASHANTH -SR PP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(CRL.) NO. 406 OF 2022

¶18

2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the owner of a contract carriage vehicle bearing Registration number No.KL-32-G-5274. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid vehicle was taken away by the respondents 3 to 5 without his knowledge and concern. Even though Ext.P2 complaint was submitted by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Aluva no action is being taken and this writ petition is submitted in such circumstances praying for directing the 2^nd respondent to register a criminal case against the respondents 4 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 378, 405, 420, 451 and 457 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

¶21

and also seeking for a direction to arrest the accused and to take custody of the vehicle in question.

¶22

Heard Sri.T.M.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to the contents of Ext.P2 complaint submitted by him to highlight that, averments stated therein reveals an offence which is

¶24

¶25

WP(CRL.) NO. 406 OF 2022

¶26

cognizable in nature and the Police ought to have register the crime and conduct investigation. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the prayer sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Court in view of the fact that the petitioner is having an ample remedy to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by submitting a private complaint and seek for reference under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor also places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)] and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others [ (2016) 6 SCC 277]

¶27

After considering the records, and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that, there is some force in the contentions put forward by the learned Government Pleader. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is to direct the investigating officer to register a crime. In Sakiri vasu’s case (supra), at paragraphs 27 and 28 it was observed as follows:

¶28

WP(CRL.) NO. 406 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶31

28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.”

¶32

In the light of the above, as the petitioner is having an alternative remedy, I am of the view that, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. It shall be open for the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate

¶33

by filing a private complaint.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶36

scs

¶37

WP(CRL.) NO. 406 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 406/2022

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE NO KL-32-G-5274 DATED
14.8.2014 IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 18.4.2022

Shiju V.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiju V.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibnul Haris Vs the State of Kerala

Shreekanth Kadam Dhondi Ram Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Udayan Vs the State Police Chief

Haris Vs State of Kerala

Vivek Vs State of Kerala

Dilshad .T Vs State of Kerala