When the investigation has commenced and the accused, the defector complainant/the victim or any other has a grievance that the investigation is not done properly, what is the remedy with such persons has in law? Can he come to this Court with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226/227 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? 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 directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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 question arises, have been heard and the counsel was 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.

4. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner Sri. C.P. Udayabhanu submits that the power of this Court to entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or Article 226/227 of the Constitution are not taken away by the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309]. In an appropriate case, such jurisdiction still vests with the Court. It is, in these circumstances, contended that in any view of the matter, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be held to be taken away by the decision in Sakiri Vasu. The counsel submits that this is a proper case where such jurisdiction can and ought to be invoked.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the nature of reliefs that can be sought from a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is rather limited and cannot, at any rate, remedy the grievance of the petitioner.

6. The decision in Sakiri Vasu appears to have considered all these aspects. I shall first consider the relevant observations in Sakiri Vasu which clearly lays down that the Magistrate has competence to monitor and supervise the investigation in an on going manner when the investigation is pending.

.7. In para.11 of the Sakiri Vasu, the learned Judges have stated so:

."....................................................................... if even after registering it (FIR) no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate, can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation." emphasis supplied)

.8. Later in para.13, the learned Judges proceeded to observe as follows:

."We would further clarify that even i