IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, R.M.CHAUHAN, JJ. - (1.) THE relief claimed in this petition is for issuing a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus for trans­ferring the investigation to another investi­gating officer to investigate the case in case crime No. 556 of 2008 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, IPC and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kosi Kalan, District Mathura studded with a further writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the re­spondent No. 2 to decide the representa­tion of the petitioner.
(2.) AN abridged version of the prose­cution case may be set out and it is that on the day of occurrence i.e. 29.7.2008, the ac­cused persons at about 6 a.m. raided the house of the complainant at about 6 a.m. variously armed with weapons alleging that the complainant's side was involved in cutting the trees from their field and started firing indiscriminately and in the firing three persons sustained fire arm in­juries. The further allegation is that. Omi brother of: the complainant succumbed to fire arm injuries' instantaneously. The report of the occurrence was lodged at P.S. Kosi the same day. The main brunt of the argument in seeking change of investigating officer is that the investigating officer has not prop­erly conducted the investigation inasmuch as he did not record the statement of the informant and the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C and submitted charge-sheet against other accused persons nominated in the FIR except Ram Prasad in whose case, final report has been submitted by the investigating officer on the ground that during investigation, his involvement in the crime was found false on account of pleading of alibi. It is further argued that co-accused Ram Prasad had been named in the F.I.R and he was assigned specific role in the commission of the offence. It is fur­ther submitted that the petitioner preferred application before the S.S.P and thereafter, before the Director General of Police but the same has not yielded any tangible ac­tion as yet.
(3.) IT would thus transpire that the crux of the grievance in seeking change of the investigating officer appears to be that the investigating officer filed final report against one of the nominated accused and that he (the investigating officer) did not record statements under section 161 of the informant and other witnesses in the case.;