- (1.) PRAYER in this petition is for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, i. e. S. S. P. Basti to transfer the investigation of the casein case crime No. 153 of 2007 under Section 147, 504, 506, 436, I. PC. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/st Act and in case crime No. 155 of 2007 under Section 395, 504 and 506, I. P. O. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/st Act registered at P. S. Paikolia District Basti to another independent and fair police agency of another zone from police station Paikolia District Basti.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner in vindication of the relief claimed in this writ petition is that the petitioner made complaint against one Chandra Prakash who has been running a fair price shop alleging therein that the foresaid person has committed various irregularities. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, a First Information Report was registered at case crime No. 153 of 2007 on 7. 6. 2007. It is further alleged that pursuant to the complaint and registration of the case, the aforesaid Chandra Prakash unleashed rein of terror against him by lodging false F. I. R. of loot and robbery which was registered at case crime No. 155 of 2007 under Section 395, 504, 506, I. PC. and 3 (1) (x) SC/st Act P. S. Paikolia District Basti. THE petitioner, it is further alleged preferred a writ petition in which the Hon'ble Court stayed arrest of the petitioner. It is further alleged that thereafter, he preferred representations to various authorities in the police hierarchy and also to the Chief Secretary with the prayer to transfer the investigation to another independent agency but the same have not yielded any concrete action. The learned Counsel for the petitioner with a view to prop up the case, also referred to Government order dated 25. 9. 1995 in which guidelines are laid down for transfer of investigation from local police to C. B. C. I. D. as enumerated in para 19 of the writ petition. The only ground urged in support of his contention that the petitioner has no hope of fair and impartial investigation by the local Police. In connection with the above submissions advanced across the bar, we feel called to advert to the proposition of law laid down in C. B. I, and another v. Rajesh Gandhi and another, 1997 Crl. LJ 63 (para 8) in which the pith of what has been held is that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. The said decision has been cited with approval in a recently decision delivered on Sakiri Vasu v. state of U. P. and others, Reported in 2008 (1) ADJ 149 (SC), has observed that the High Court should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters. In para 30 of the aforesaid decision it is observed that by the Apex Court that if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer In charge of the concerned police station such aggrieved person can approach the Supdt. of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer Incharge of the Police station and such superior officer can if he so wishes do the investigation.
(3.) REVERTING to the facts of the present case, the only ground urged in support of the prayer for transferring the investigation is that a false F. I. R. has been lodged against him and further that he has no faith in the investigation being conducted by the local police. There is no tangible material or extra- ordinary ground pressed before us warranting interference by this Court. In the above perspective, the petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. .;