Is the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2008 AIR SCW 309] in conflict with the earlier decisions in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar [1970 S.C. 786], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna [1980 S.C. 326] and State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal [1985 S.C. 195]? Does Vasanthi Devi v. sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945] require reconsideration? These questions are raised by Advocate A.X. Varghese before me in this Writ Petition with vehemence.

2. Petitioner claims to be the unfortunate victim of an instance of gang rape. In respect of the crime committed against her, Crime 273 of 2007 of Payyannur Police Station has been registered under Section 376 (2) I.P.C. she had allegedly undergone this trauma while she was pregnant. A series of instances took place between the second weeks of April 2007 to the end of April 2007. The petitioner is a married woman, aged about 19 years. She lives with her husband. The husband in connection with his employment was obliged to be away from home on several days. It is alleged that several persons-17 accused persons have been arrayed by now, have committed the offence of rape/gang rape against her during this period. She could not muster courage to lodge a complaint until long later when she was constrained to break down in front of her husband and reveal all the details to him. The crime was registered on 30.06.2007. Investigation is in progress.

3. The allegations raised include allegations against influential persons in the political field. There is also an allegation that the wives of some of the accused had also actively taken part in the perpetration of the offence of rape against the petitioner.

4. Because of the nature of the crime and allegations of involvement of political functionaries, the crime attract a lot of public attention and sensation and the Director General of Police was ultimately persuaded to issue Ext.P1 order entrusting the investigation to the Crime Branch C.I.D of Kannur district. Investigation is now going on. The 4th respondent is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is conducting the investigation under his superior-the 3rd respondent, who is the Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D. at Kozhikode. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a grievance that the 4th respondent is not conducting a proper investigation. The investigators appear to be more interested in persuading the petitioner to settle and compromise the dispute rather than to ensure that the offenders are brought to book. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that there may be a direction that proper investigation must be conducted by the investigators. It is prayed that State of Kerala and the Director General of Police may be directed by a Writ of Mandamus to constitute a special investigating team consisting of conscientious officers with untarnished service history, preferably C.B.I, to investigate into the crime with proper monitoring of the investigation by this Court.

5. When this petition came up for admission, 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 AIR SCW 309], this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes the stand first to all that Sakiri Vasu does not represent the correct law to the extent that it says that aggrieved persons cannot always come before this Court to seek appropriate directions for a proper and efficient investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in any view of the matter, the two Judge Bench decision in Sakiri Vasu must be held to be in conflict with the three Judge Bench decision in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar [1970 S.C. 786], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna [1980 S.C. 326] and State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal [1985

S.C. 195]. The learned couns