JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - The Petitioner in the above writ application has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to the Opp.Party Nos. 1 to 5 directing for arrest of Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 11 and further directing for investigation of the case by the Crime Branch on the allegations of Police inaction in proper investigation of Pipili P.S. Case No. 228 of 1995 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 627 of 1995 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Puri registered for the offences under Sections326, 380/34,I.P.C. 2. Petitioner and Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5 were heard at the stage of hearing on admission and final disposal of the writ application, hence notice to the Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 11 was not issued and they did not participate in the hearing. 3. It reveals from the assertions made in the writ application and the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner and the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No. 5 on behalf to the Opp.Party Nos. 1 to 5 that there is a land dispute between the Petitioner's father namely Purna Ch. Panda and the family of Opp.Party Nos. 6 to 11 and one of such dispute relates to a Govt. plot i.e. Plot No. 1471 in mouza Balisahi which according to the Investigating Officer is the only connecting road between the Panchayat road and the houses of the Opp.Party Nos. 6 to 11 and other co-villagers. On 26.11.1995 when the Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 10 were clearing the sewda bushes planted on that Government land by Petitioner's father, Purna Chandra Panda, he came and interfered as a result of which a quarrel ensued. Opposite Party No. 6, Bata Krushna Panda lodged F.I.R. alleging assault and attempt to murder and that report dtd.26.11.1995 was registered as P.S. Case No. 227 of 1995 (G.R. Case No. 1628 of 1995) of the Court of S.D.J.M., Puri) u/s 307/34, I.P.C. against Purna Chandra Panda and others. It was alleged inter alia that Puma Chandra Panda dealt a pharsa blow to the head of opp.party No. 7 whereas another accused Laxmidhar Panda aimed a kati blow on opp.party No. 7, but Bilasini Panda, wife of Puma Chandra Panda in the meantime appeared in between them to dissuade the assault and that kati blow hit and injured her left hand near the wrist. Relating to the self same occurrence on 27.11.1995 one of the sons of Purna Chandra Panda namely Rankanidhi Panda (not a party in this O.J.C.) lodged a report alleging assault on Puma Chandra Panda and Bilasini Panda by opp.party Nos. 6 to 10 and Pipili P.S. Case No. 228 of 1995 (G.R. Case No. 1627/95 under Sections326, 380/34 I.P.C. was registered. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though on the basis of the F.I.R. of Bata Krushna Panda, a case for the offence u/s 307/34, I.P.C. was registered against the alleged assailants belonging to the family of Purna Chandra Panda and investigation of that case was taken up promptly, but the Investigating Officer i.e. the opp.party No. 5 registered the case against the opposite party Nos. 6 to 11 for lesser offence on the F.I.R. lodged from the side of Purna Chandra Panda and also did not take prompt action for investigation of the case besides not taking any step to arrest the accused persons involved in that case. Petitioner further alleges that though the Superintendent of Police (opp.party No. 3) was intimated about the aforesaid inaction of the I.O. yet there was no improvement,in the standard of investigation or sincerity in arresting the culprits. Accordingly, Petitioner has prayed for investigation of the case by the Crime branch. 5. The Investigating Officer (opp.party No. 5), in his counter affidavit: has denied to the allegations "and inter alia stated that in the process of investigation a prima facie case for the offence u/s 323/34, I.P.C. being found against the concerned opp.party members, they were arrested and were released on bail and the investigation was delayed due to non-cooperation of Purna Chandra Panda and his family members. 6. It appears that though the Petitioner has alleged that there is no investigation by the opposite party No. 5 and that the matter was accordingly reported to the Superintendent of Police, yet no evidence worth the name has been produced in support of that contention. When the opp.party No. 5 in his counter affidavit has denied to the aforesaid allegations, on the other hand, the opp.party No. 5 has stated in his counter affidavit, the steps taken for and during investigation. 7. When the opp.party No. 5 in his counter affidavit has denied to the aforesaid allegations, on the other hand, the opp.party No. 5 has stated in his counter affidavit, the steps taken for and during investigation. 7. Upon receipt of a written report (F.I.R.) or information relating to commission of cognizable offence, the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station or any competent Police Officer authorized by him shall take up the investigation and Final Form shall be submitted by him on completion of investigation and this he is to do in accordance with the provisions in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Code). If the informant/complainant is not satisfied with that report in the Final Form, he has the right to file a protest petition, which shall be properly considered by the cognizance taking Magistrate, there is no dispute about this legal position. 8. As it appears grievance of the Petitioner against the Police is for not registering a case u/s 307 I.P.C. against the alleged culprits in Pipli P.S. Case No. 228 of 1995. That contention hardly appears to be reasonable and logical so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction. If the informant feels that the Final Form does not contain all the relevant facts or that even if facts are stated correctly with all relevant particulars, the offence quoted in the charge sheet is not correct, he may appropriately approach the cognizance taking Magistrate for proper remedy. Thus, in this case, when the counter affidavit of the opposite party No. 5 clearly shows that investigation has been conducted in accordance with the law and procedure and the delay, if any is due to the noncooperation of the informant's side, it is not found a fit case for issue of a writ of mandamus directing for investigation by the Crime Branch or for issue of any other writ as prayed for; 9. Apart from that it is also seen that the Petitioner is not the informant, he was not a witness to the occurrence, nor he is an injured. On the other hand, the informant and the injured persons are not made parties in this writ application to have their say in the matter. Under such circumstances, it is found that the writ application with the aforesaid prayer is not maintainable by the Petitioner. 10. On the other hand, the informant and the injured persons are not made parties in this writ application to have their say in the matter. Under such circumstances, it is found that the writ application with the aforesaid prayer is not maintainable by the Petitioner. 10. For the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find any reason to issue any writ much less a writ of mandamus and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that if in the mean time the final form has not been submitted, it be done by completing the investigation most expeditiously and preferably within a period of 30 days hence'. S.N. Phukan, C.J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed