[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Welfare Association Trust vs The Station House Officer on 3 February, 2026
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2026:KER:9248
W.P.(Crl)No.1464 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1464 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
WELFARE ASSOCIATION TRUST,
AGED 73 YEARS,
WEST VELIYATHUNADU, ALUVA,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICE CHAIRMAN,
SHRI.MOHAMMED IQUBAL , AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.
HASSAN ALI, RESIDING AT VEZHAPPILLIL, WEST
VELIYATHUNADU.P.O. ADUVATHURUTH, ALANGAD,
KARUMALLOOR., PIN - 683511
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)
SHRI.M.A.KHADIRKUNJU
RESPONDENT:
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION,
MUPPATHADAM ROAD, ALUVA, PIN - 683110
BY ADV
SRI. E.C. BINEESH, PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9248
W.P.(Crl)No.1464 of 2025 2
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl) No.1464 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are as follows:-
"i) To call for the Records relating to Exhibit P1 to P8 and
to issue any Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ direction or order directing the Respondent to
investigate into Ext.P7 complaint filed by the Petitioner
before the Respondent and register a crime against the
culprits and bring them before law.
ii) To issue any Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction or order directing the
Respondent to submit a report before this Hon'ble Court
regarding what action they had taken on Ext.P7 complaint
and what is the stage of the investigation.
iii) To issues any Writ or mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction or order directing the
Respondent to afford adequate police protection to the
Petitioner to carry the compost of food waste from their
property to another property owned by them from the
persons who are obstructing the same under the
leadership of the persons mentioned herein.
iv) To grant such other reliefs that may be deemed fit by
this Hon'ble Court in due course of this case and to pass
cost of this case."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The petitioner is a Welfare Association Trust,
represented by its Vice Chairman, functioning within the territorial
limits of Binanipuram Police Station, Aluva. The petitioner filed a
complaint before the Police (Ext.P7) alleging that vehicle bearing
2026:KER:9248
registration No. KL/42/X-4958 owned by the Trust, was obstructed
by some local people and they trespassed into the property of the
Trust.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the
petitioner filed a complaint alleging cognizable offences, the
Police has not registered any crime.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions,
submitted that on 03.08.2025, the Police got information that
sewage waste was deposited in a vacant compound near Puthiya
Road Chembola Temple, the property belonging to the petitioner.
The Inspector of Police along with police party, visited the location
without any delay. They was a public protest in the leadership of
the members of the Local Self Government Department. The
Inspector found that waste had been deposited in the land owned
by the Trust, from which a stinging smell was emanating. The
Police questioned the driver of the vehicle. He claimed that it was
food waste.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
Police took the vehicle into custody alleging negligent
transportation of waste through public way and imposed a fine.
Later the Police released the vehicle. The learned Public
Prosecutor further submitted that in the enquiry no cognizable
offence was revealed. The petitioner has alternate remedies, if the
2026:KER:9248
police failed to register a crime based on a complaint alleging
offences under the cognizable offences. There is nothing to show
that the petitioner has invoked such remedies, it is submitted.
7. While dealing with a similar fact situations, this
Court in G. S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others
(2022 KHC 1013) held thus:-
15. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure
prescribes the procedure to investigate cognizable
offences. Subsection (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C. says that
every information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of
a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or
under his direction, and be read over to the informant and
every such information, whether given in writing or
reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the
person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form
as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Section 156 Cr.P.C. empowers the Police Officer to
investigate into cognizable offence on receipt of such
information and the same is reduced to writing. The
procedure for investigation is provided in Section 157
Cr.P.C. After conducting the investigation prescribed in the
manner envisaged in Chapter XII, charge sheet shall be
submitted to the Court having jurisdiction to take
cognizance of offence.
16. Section 173 Cr.P.C. envisages that as soon as every
investigation is completed the officer in charge of the
police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to
take cognizance of the offence on a police report in the
form prescribed by the State Government giving details
therein. Upon receipt of the report, the Court under
Section 190 is empowered to take cognizance of the
offence. Under Section 173(8), the investigating officer
has the power to make further investigation into the
offence.
17. When the information is laid with the police but no
2026:KER:9248
action on that behalf was taken, the complainant is given
power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the
Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the
Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as
provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate
after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead
of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to
direct the concerned police to investigate the offence
under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he
finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to
take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the
complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds
that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie
discloses offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of
the offence and would issue process to the accused.
18. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409]
the Apex Court held thus:-
"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a
person has a grievance that the police station is not
registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can
approach the Superintendent of Police under Section
154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that
does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that
either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after
registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open
to the aggrieved person to file an application under
Section 156(3) CrPC 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."
19. In Sakiri Vasu the Apex Court further held that if a
person has a grievance that his FIR has not been
registered by the Police, or having been registered, proper
investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the
aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the
Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
20. The Apex Court in All India Institute of
Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union
of India; Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of
Maharashtra (supra); Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar
[(2006) 4 SCC 359], Hari Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006)
2026:KER:9248
W.P.(Crl)No.1464 of 2025 6
5 SCC 733], Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala
and Others (supra), M.Subramaniam and Another v.
S.Janaki and Another [(2020) 16 SCC 728], Sudhir
Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and
Others [(2016) 6 SCC 277], Fr.Sebastian
Vadakkumpadam v. Shine Varghese and Others; and
Michael Varghese v. Chief Minister of Kerala and
Others (supra) reiterated the principles discussed
above."
In the present case, the petitioner has rushed to the
High Court by filing the Writ Petition without adopting the
procedure provided under the Code. The petitioner has
alternate remedies to redress its grievances. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to the public law remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU
JUDGE
VPK
2026:KER:9248
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1464 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE DATED 15.6.2012 OF THE
WELFARE ASSOCIATION TRUST ISSUED BY
THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR
Exhibit P2 THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.2.2023
ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR
ORPHANAGES AND OTHER CHARITABLE
HOMES, KERALA
Exhibit P3 THE CERTIFICATE DATED 24.3.2022
ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR
ORPHANAGES AND OTHER CHARITABLE
HOMES, KERALA
Exhibit P4 THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.8.2023
ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR
ORPHANAGES AND OTHER CHARITABLE
HOMES, KERALA
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINE RECEIPT
DATED 4.8.2025 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER
DATED 21.8.2025 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
20.9.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
20.9.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT
