Judgment Heard both sides. The petitioner is a registered company and have come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the first and second respondents to form an independent team to investigate into the complaints lodged by the petitioner with regard to vandalization of various outlets as set out in Annexures A and B to the affidavit and the petition and to further direct them to file a report within a time frame. 2.The learned Government advocate was directed to take notice. It is seen from the documents produced by the petitioner that First Information Reports have been filed before the R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, dated 16.01.2009 and B-9 Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore, dated 18.02.2009. The petitioner has also lodged complaints on 18.02.2009 and on various other dates to various respondents. There has been number of complaints pending. 3. The grievance of the petitioner was that 21 properties of the petitioner were attacked, out of which 11 properties were in Coimbatore and Erode. They were attacked by a gang led by one Ramesh alias Aditya. The balance of the properties were broken in different incidents. The petitioner had lost more than Rs.10 lakhs. The petitioner had difficulties in having registering the FIRs. Unless severe action is taken, the petitioners properties will be in trouble. 4. Mr.I.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this court by a judgment in A.Sowfila Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and others reported in 2008 (2) LW(Crl.) 843 has held that this court has got power to direct the Station House Officer to register a FIR. 5. But in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409 , the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 25 to 27, which is as follows: "25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, first under Section 154(3) and Section 36 CrPC before the police offices concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3). 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 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." 6. 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." 6. When this judgment was pressed into service by the prosecution before the learned Judge, who heard the Sowfilas case (cited supra) in paragraphs 52 and 53, the learned Judge observed as follows: "52. It is to be pointed out that certain offences which are not serious in nature and facts and circumstances may not require immediate investigation by police and for such cases, the aggrieved parties can very well resort to the above said alternative remedies indicated by the Honble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasus case. It is needless to state, as stated in the earlier portion of this order, certain grave, serious, heinous and complicated cases require immediate registration of the First Information Report and quick investigation otherwise, the culprits may escape from the clutches of law resulting grave miscarriage of justice to the affected and aggrieved persons. 53. This Court already pointed out in the earlier portion of this order that the Honble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasus case has not altogether excluded the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Honble Apex Court that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised under the following three circumstances, namely, (i)to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii)to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Therefore, considering the seriousness, gravity and complication of each case, this Court can give direction to the police to register the First Information Report, if the allegation contained in the complaints constitutes cognizable offence in the event of their failure to register the First Information Report, by exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and such power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself." 7. The learned Judge referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and held that Sakiri Vasus case did not exclude the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this court. He also drew support from the other judgments of the Supreme Court and gave the direction as noted above. 8. However, this court is not inclined to accept the view taken by the learned judge on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasus case (cited supra), as it is squarely binding. In that case, the Supreme Court had directed the High Courts not to entertain writ petitions for transfer of investigation to other agencies as found in paragraph 31 and it is as follows: "31. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by CBI vide CBI V. State of Rajasthan ( 2001 (3) SCC 333 ) but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them." 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.