WP(C) No. 21172 of 2008 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 409, 468
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 156(3)
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: -------------
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARTY, HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR.
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.
P. BHARATHAN, PADASSERY HOUSE, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. R1 TO 4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 21172 of 2008 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that Crime No. 764 of 2007 of Trichur East Police Station registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, inter alia, under Sections 468 and 409 I.P.C. is not being investigated into properly and with expedition. The petitioner prays that directions may be issued to the Investigating Officer invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC), followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of police (2008 (1) KLT 945), the petitioner will be justified in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without and before exhausting what has been termed to be an equally efficacious alternative remedy, which the petitioner has under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. W.P.C.No. 21172 of 2008 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that in exceptional cases the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not taken away by the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (supra). I have no quarrel with that proposition of law. But I am unable to find any satisfactory and exceptional reasons which can take the instant case out of the sweep of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu (supra).
3. I am satisfied that the petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate must consider the request and take appropriate decision in the matter. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved, his avenues of challenge shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. (R. BASANT) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 409, 468; Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 15 Jul 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.