HABEEBRAHMAN, OORAKOTTIL HOUSE v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Nov 2008
- Bench
- R BASANT
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 156(3), 482
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), a person aggrieved by the quality of the investigation conducted by the…
- Para 44. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner approaches the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate must consider the same and take appropriate decision in the matter. (R. BASANT) Judge Crl.M.C.No. 4366 of 2008 3
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4366 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008
O R D E R Against the petitioner crime No.729 of 2008 has been registered by the police. It is submitted at the Bar that in that crime it is alleged that the petitioner's vehicle was involved in an offence relating to illicit transportation of river sand. That crime was registered on 13.10.2008.
2. According to the petitioner no proper investigation is being conducted into that crime. The petitioner had approached the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and Annex.1 application was submitted before the Superintendent of Police. The same has been acknowledged on 14.10.2008. In spite of the fact that Annex.1 complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police, no proper investigation is being conducted into the crime registered. This in short is the grievance of the petitioner. He prays that a proper investigation may be directed to be conducted in the light of Annex.1 complaint already submitted by him to the Superintendent of Police. Crl.M.C.No. 4366 of 2008 2
After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724)(SC), which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), a person aggrieved by the quality of the investigation conducted by the police into a crime must seek appropriate direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. from the Magistrate concerned, who, it is held, has the duty/obligation to monitor and supervise the investigation. It is trite that a person with a grievance like the instant one raised by the petitioner cannot come to this Court directly and claim invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such person must ordinarily exhaust the remedy available to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner approaches the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate must consider the same and take appropriate decision in the matter. (R. BASANT) Judge Crl.M.C.No. 4366 of 2008 3
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 156(3), 482; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 14 Nov 2008. The bench was R BASANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.