- (1.) 5/1.5.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS have filed this application for issuance of the writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the respondents to transfer the investigation of G.R. Case No.1487 of 2011, corresponding to Gobindpur P.S. Case No.152 of 2011, instituted for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC, from local police to C.I.D or any other investigating agency for fair investigation in the matter. The law regarding power of the High Court directing the C.B.I. (or for that matter to C.I.D) to investigate a criminal case is no more res intergra. In Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 733, this question has been decided by the Supreme Court of India, wherein, it has been laid as follows:- When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prime facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into 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 compliant/evidence recorded prime facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) V. Union of India. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.
(3.) THE above position was again highlighted recently in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and in Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar. " (Emphasis supplied). In the present case also, the petitioners have filed this petition before this Court and have not taken any recourse to Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C., and accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as quoted above, I am of the considered view that this writ petition cannot be entertained. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, in limine.;