High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-07-11Petition dismissed

T.K. Valsala v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 20941 of 2008(R)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
Judgment Date: 2008-07-11
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is dismissed. The Court observes that the petitioner has not shown exceptional reasons to entertain a writ under Article 226/482 Cr.P.C. The judge directs that if the petitioner moves the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for appropriate directions, the Magistrate must consider the same on merits. If the petitioner remains aggrieved by the Magistrate’s order, she may approach this Court again.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.K. Valsala

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary Home Department, Thiruvananthapuram
Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Kochi
Superintendent of Police, Rural Ernakulam
Circle Inspector of Police, Mulantthurthy Police Station, Piravom, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.M.J.SHINSA MOLE
• SMT.K.MEKHA DINESH

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, T.K. Valsala, is the mother of a young man murdered on 21 May 2007. An FIR has been registered and the investigation is ongoing. In the course of investigation, four persons have been identified and arrested, although the petitioner states that a friend named Salim, who witnessed the incident, mentions seven accused. She alleges that the police are not conducting a thorough or proper investigation and that Salim has not been questioned. Seeking relief, she approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to obtain directions for a more effective investigation. The Court recalls the principle established in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Others, and later followed in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police, to emphasize that a petitioner can challenge investigation adequacy before the High Court only upon exceptional circumstances, with a recognized remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before a Magistrate. After hearing counsel, the Judge finds that no sufficient exceptional grounds have been shown to warrant invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction in the present circumstances. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, but with a clear direction that if the petitioner approaches the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Magistrate should consider the request on its merits. If unsatisfied, she may approach this Court again.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 156(3) Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Exceptional reasons required to entertain extraordinary writ petitions in criminal investigations.
Existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Sakiri Vasu doctrine (that Parliament/State may restrict High Court interference in investigation without exceptional circumstances).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the investigation into the murder of her son has been inadequately pursued. Despite identifying four accused during investigation, the police have not thoroughly examined the eyewitness Salim, who purportedly saw the crime and claimed seven accused were involved. The petitioner submits that the police theory is incomplete and seeks directions under Article 226 and 482 Cr.P.C to ensure a fair and comprehensive investigation. She argues that the available remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has not been effectively utilized and that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant interference by the High Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on established jurisprudence that criticized or quashed writ petitions challenging investigations without exceptional reasons, citing Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Others. They emphasize the existence of an efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate and argue that the petitioner has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances justifying invocation of the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction. They contend that the proper course is to pursue directions through the Magistrate under 156(3) Cr.P.C and, if dissatisfied, to seek relief through this Court again.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others	AIR 2008 SCW 309	Positive	The decision is cited as the controlling principle; it is followed to hold that a writ petition seeking direction in an investigation cannot ordinarily be entertained unless exceptional reasons are shown.
Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police	2008(1) KLT 945	Positive	The High Court states it has followed Sakiri Vasu in Vasanthi Devi, reinforcing the same principle regarding non-entertainment of such petitions absent exceptional circumstances.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against T.K. Valsala v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20941 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: - ------------ T.K.VALSALA , AGED 57 YEARS W/O. LATE A.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, MANIYANKUNNU, BRAHMAMANGALAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SMT.M.J.SHINSA MOLE SMT.K.MEKHA DINESH RESPONDENTS: - ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DIRECTOR, - CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NEW DELHI. 4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE - CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION KOCHI. 5. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, RURAL ERNAKULAM. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULANTHURTHY POLICE STATION PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** W.P.C.No.20941 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of July 2008 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the unfortunate mother whose young son was murdered on 21/5/2007 by a group of persons. The F.I.R has been registered. Investigation is in progress. In the F.I.R no person has been named as accused. But in the course of investigation, police have identified that four persons were involved in the commission of the crime. Those four persons have already been arrested. 2. According to the petitioner, the police is not conducting a proper investigation. A friend of the deceased one Salim, was also allegedly present along with him at the time of the incident. He had seen the incident. According to him there were seven accused persons involved in the commission of the crime. But the police, for obscure reasons, are satisfied with their theory that only four persons are involved in the crime. According to the petitioner, the said Salim has not been questioned also by the police. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this court with this petition under W.P.C.No.20941/08 2 Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue appropriate directions. 3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 945] it is absolutely clear that a person like the petitioner who has grievance about the inadequate or insufficient investigation cannot come to this court directly with applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Unless such petitioner is able to show exceptional reasons which must persuade this court to entertain such an application notwithstanding the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate, such petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot ordinarily be entertained by this court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Her grievance certainly deserves to be attended to; but I am certainly of the opinion that no sufficient circumstances are shown to exist which can persuade this court to invoke the W.P.C.No.20941/08 3 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C to issue directions notwithstanding the dictum in **Sakiri** (Supra). 5. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner moves the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for appropriate directions the learned Magistrate must consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits. If the grievance of the petitioner is not satisfied, of course, she can again approach this court to challenge such order. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.20941/08 4 W.P.C.No.20941/08 5 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007