VASANTHI DEVI Vs. S L OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2008 AIR SCW 309] transform the law relating to magisterial supervision of investigation by police When the investigation has commenced and the victim, the defacto complainant, the accused or any other has a grievance that the investigation is not done properly, what is the remedy which such person has in law Can he come to this Court with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution Can or should this Court entertain and consider such a petition Before such person exhausts his alternative remedy of approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C should such a person ordinarily be permitted entry into this Court Unless exceptional and peculiar reasons are shown to exist, will this Court be justified in entertaining such a petition What is the ambit and sweep of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C These are the questions that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The factual matrix is simple. Crime No.2001 of 2007 of Kattakkada Police Station has been registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 468 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner, a woman, aged 51 years is the defacto complainant in that crime. Her short grievance is that no proper investigation has been conducted by the investigating Officer so far. She has come to this Court without and before approaching the learned Magistrate with request to issue appropriate direction to the Investigating police officer.

(3.) When this case came up for hearing, this Court felt that in the light of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309], the above questions deserve detailed consideration. Many similar matters, in which the same questions arise, have been grouped together and the counsel were requested to advance arguments on this specific aspect. Arguments have been heard. Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu, the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments. At the request of this Court, Advocate S.Sreekumar, the Standing Counsel for C.B.I has advanced arguments as Amicus Curiae. The learned Public Prosecutor has also been heard.