Akhil J K vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 912 Ker

Kerala High Court

Akhil J K vs State Of Kerala on 31 January, 2026

                                                                   ​2026:KER:8142​
​WA NO. 85 OF 2026​                    ​1​



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
                      ​
                                     PRESENT​
                                     ​

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
             ​

                                             &​
                                             ​

                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN​
                      ​

                        ST​
                        ​
        SATURDAY, THE 31​
        ​                   DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA,​​
                            ​                                 1947​

                                  WA NO. 85 OF 2026​
                                  ​

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2025 IN WP(Crl.) NO.1463 OF​
 ​
                        2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA​
                        ​


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:​
​

               ​KHIL J K​
               A
               AGED 45 YEARS​
               ​
               RESIDING AT MINI NILAYAM, KAKUKINCODE,​
               ​
               KODANGAVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,​
               ​
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,​
               ​
               PIN - 695123​
               ​


               BY ADV SHRI.SALIM KUMAR A.​
               ​

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:​

​

1​ ​ ​TATE OF KERALA​ S REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO​ ​ GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031​ ​

2​ ​ ​HE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE​ T THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, KERALA POLICE​ ​ HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031​ ​

3​ ​ ​HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEYYATTINKARA​ T POLICE STATION​ ​ ​2026:KER:8142​ ​WA NO. 85 OF 2026​ ​2​

​EYYATTINKARA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,​ N PIN - 682031​ ​

4​ ​ ​NION OF INDIA​ U REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,​ ​ MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DAK BHAVAN,​ ​ SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001​ ​

5​ ​ ​HE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE​ T OFFICE OF THE CPMG, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, PMG,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033​ ​

6​ ​ ​HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES​ T THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH​ ​ EAST FORT, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,​ ​ KERALA, PIN - 695023​ ​

7​ ​ ​TATE BANK OF INDIA​ S REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,​ ​ LOCAL HEAD OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, POOJAPPURA,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012​ ​

8​ ​ ​NIVERSITY OF KERALA​ U REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,​ ​ PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034​ ​

9​ ​ ​R. K SASIDHARAN​ M AGED 66 YEARS​ ​ (DISCHARGED ABPM), INDIA POST, RESIDING AT​ ​ KODANGAVILA, ATHIYANNOOR PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA​ ​ THALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123​ ​

10​ ​ ​R. RAJEEV KUMAR B​ M AGED 51 YEARS​ ​ S/O LATE. SRI. BALAKRISHNAN, POSTAL ASSISTANT,​ ​ INDIA POST, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 6/62 A, UTHRADAM​ ​ (CHEENIVILA PUTHAN VEEDU), KAMUKINCODE WARD,​ ​ ATHIYANNUR PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA THALUK,​ ​ KODANGAVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123​ ​ ​2026:KER:8142​ ​WA NO. 85 OF 2026​ ​3​

11​ ​ ​RS. VEENA J K​ M AGED 42 YEARS​ ​ W/O RAJEEV KUMAR B, DY. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF​ ​ INDIA, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 6/62 A, UTHRADAM​ ​ (CHEENIVILA PUTHAN VEEDU), KAMUKINCODE WARD,​ ​ ATHIYANNUR PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA THALUK,​ ​ KODANGAVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123​ ​

OTHER PRESENT:​ ​

ADV. THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC FOR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA​ ​

​HIS​ ​ T WRIT​ ​ APPEAL​ ​ HAVING​ ​ COME​ ​ UP​ ​ FOR​ ​ ADMISSION​ ​ ON​​ 31.01.2026,​ THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​2026:KER:8142​ ​WA NO. 85 OF 2026​ ​4​

​J U D G M E N T​

​Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.​

​The​ ​above-captioned​ ​Writ​ ​Appeal​ ​is​ ​preferred​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant,​ ​being​

​aggrieved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​judgment​ ​dated​ ​11.12.2025​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​

​Judge in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1463 of 2025.​

​2.​ ​The​ ​Writ​ ​Petition​ ​was​ ​filed​ ​seeking​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​appropriate​

​directions​​to​​the​​respondent​​police​​authorities​​to​​register​​an​​FIR​​and​​conduct​​a​

​proper​ ​investigation​ ​into​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​offences​ ​purportedly​ ​committed​ ​by​ ​the​

​sister​ ​and​ ​brother-in-law​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​and​ ​certain​ ​postal​ ​authorities.​

​Further​​relief​​was​​also​​sought,​​directing​​the​​Chief​​General​​Manager,​​State​​Bank​

​of​​India,​​to​​initiate​​disciplinary​​proceedings​​against​​the​​sister​​of​​the​​appellant,​

​along with other consequential reliefs.​

​3.​ ​The​​appellant,​​who​​is​​an​​Advocate​​by​​profession,​​alleged​​that​​the​

​original​​Degree​​Certificate​​forwarded​​by​​the​​University​​of​​Kerala​​was​​delivered​

​by​ ​the​ ​Postal​ ​Assistant​ ​(9th​ ​respondent)​ ​to​ ​his​ ​brother-in-law​ ​(10th​

​respondent),​ ​who,​ ​in​ ​alleged​ ​conspiracy​ ​with​ ​the​ ​appellant's​ ​sister​ ​(11th​

​respondent),​ ​unlawfully​ ​retained​ ​the​ ​same​ ​and​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​hand​ ​it​ ​over​ ​to​ ​the​

​appellant.​​It​​is​​further​​alleged​​that​​the​​11th​​respondent​​subsequently​​returned​ ​2026:KER:8142​ ​WA NO. 85 OF 2026​ ​5​

​the​ ​certificate​ ​to​ ​the​ ​University​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​refused​ ​to​

​accept delivery.​

​4.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge,​ ​before​ ​whom​ ​the​ ​matter​ ​was​

​considered,​ ​recorded​ ​the​ ​submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Standing​ ​Counsel​

​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​University​ ​that​ ​the​ ​certificate​ ​could​ ​be​ ​handed​ ​over​ ​to​ ​the​

​appellant​ ​upon​ ​his​ ​approaching​ ​the​ ​University​ ​and,​ ​accordingly,​ ​issued​

​appropriate directions in that regard.​

​5.​ ​It​​is​​evident​​from​​the​​pleadings​​and​​submissions​​that​​the​​attempt​

​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​was​ ​primarily​ ​to​ ​drag​ ​his​ ​own​ ​family​ ​members​ ​into​

​unnecessary​ ​and​ ​avoidable​ ​litigation.​ ​In​ ​any​ ​event,​​the​​principal​​relief​​sought​

​by​ ​the​ ​appellant,​ ​namely,​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​a​ ​direction​ ​to​ ​the​ ​police​ ​to​ ​register​ ​a​

​crime,​ ​could​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​granted​ ​in​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​ ​of​ ​the​

​present case.​

​6.​ ​In​ ​Sakiri​ ​Vasu​ ​V​ ​State​ ​of​ ​UP​ ​and​ ​Others​​1​,​ ​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​had​

​occasion to observe as under:​

​"​26.​​If​​a​​person​​has​​a​​grievance​​that​​his​​FIR​​has​​not​​been​ ​registered​ ​by​ ​the​​police​​station​​his​​first​​remedy​​is​​to​​approach​ ​the​ ​Superintendent​ ​of​ ​Police​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​154(3)​ ​CrPC​ ​or​

​1​ ​(2008 (2) SCC 409)​ ​2026:KER:8142​ ​WA NO. 85 OF 2026​ ​6​

​other​ ​police​ ​officer​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​in​ ​Section​ ​36​ ​CrPC.​ ​If​ ​despite​ ​approaching​​the​​Superintendent​​of​​Police​​or​​the​​officer​​referred​ ​to​ ​in​ ​Section​ ​36​ ​his​ ​grievance​ ​still​ ​persists,​ ​then​ ​he​ ​can​ ​approach​ ​a​ ​Magistrate​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​156(3)​ ​CrPC​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​rushing​​to​​the​​High​​Court​​by​​way​​of​​a​​writ​​petition​​or​​a​​petition​ ​under​​Section​​482​​CrPC.​​Moreover,​​he​​has​​a​​further​​remedy​​of​ ​filing​ ​a​ ​criminal​ ​complaint​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​200​ ​CrPC.​ ​Why​ ​then​ ​should​ ​writ​ ​petitions​ ​or​ ​Section​ ​482​ ​petitions​ ​be​ ​entertained​ ​when there are so many alternative remedies?​

​27.​ ​As​ ​we​ ​have​ ​already​ ​observed​ ​above,​ ​the​ ​Magistrate​ ​has​ ​very​ ​wide​ ​powers​ ​to​ ​direct​ ​registration​ ​of​ ​an​ ​FIR​ ​and​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​a​ ​proper​ ​investigation​ ​and​ ​for​ ​this​ ​purpose​ ​he​ ​can​ ​monitor​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​is​ ​done​​properly​​(though​​he​​cannot​​investigate​​himself).​​The​​High​ ​Court​ ​should​ ​discourage​​the​​practice​​of​​filing​​a​​writ​​petition​​or​ ​petition​​under​​Section​​482​​CrPC​​simply​​because​​a​​person​​has​​a​ ​grievance​​that​​his​​FIR​​has​​not​​been​​registered​​by​​the​​police,​​or​ ​after​ ​being​ ​registered,​ ​proper​​investigation​​has​​not​​been​​done​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police.​ ​For​ ​this​ ​grievance,​ ​the​ ​remedy​ ​lies​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​36​ ​and​ ​154(3)​ ​before​ ​the​ ​police​ ​officers​ ​concerned,​ ​and​​if​​that​​is​​of​​no​​avail,​​under​​Section​​156(3)​​CrPC​​before​​the​ ​Magistrate​ ​or​ ​by​ ​filing​ ​a​ ​criminal​ ​complaint​ ​under​​Section​​200​ ​CrPC​​and​​not​​by​​filing​​a​​writ​​petition​​or​​a​​petition​​under​​Section​ ​482 CrPC.​

​28.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​true​ ​that​ ​alternative​ ​remedy​ ​is​ ​not​ ​an​ ​absolute​ ​bar​ ​to​​a​​writ​​petition,​​but​​it​​is​​equally​​well​​settled​​that​​if​​there​ ​is​ ​an​ ​alternative​ ​remedy​ ​the​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​should​ ​not​ ​ordinarily​ ​interfere​​."​ ​2026:KER:8142​ ​WA NO. 85 OF 2026​ ​7​

​7.​ ​When​ ​the​ ​above​ ​legal​ ​position​ ​was​ ​brought​ ​to​ ​the​ ​notice​ ​of​ ​the​

​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​the​​appellant,​​he​​sought​​permission​​to​​withdraw​

​this appeal.​

​8.​ ​Even​ ​otherwise,​ ​having​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​allegations​

​raised​​and​​the​​relief​​already​​granted​​by​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge,​​this​​Court​​is​

​of​​the​​considered​​view​​that​​the​​filing​​of​​the​​present​​appeal​​amounts​​to​​a​​clear​

​abuse of the process of law, warranting imposition of exemplary costs.​

​9.​ ​However,​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​refrains​ ​from​ ​imposing​ ​costs​ ​in​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​

​fervent submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.​

​Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.​

​Sd/-​

​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,​ ​JUDGE​

​Sd/-​ ​JOBIN SEBASTIAN,​ ​JUDGE​ ​APM​