Honble SHETHNA, J.–Within ten days of the commission of the alleged offence this petition is filed by the present petitioners, who are the complainant, making a prayer to this Court, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the effect that instead of local police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) be directed to investigate into the complaints in question filed by the parties before the local police as the petitioners have no faith in the local police for the reasons mentioned in the petition. Another prayer made in this petition is to direct the local police to restore all the petitioners valuables including securities, records, cash and jewellery which are in possession of H.H. Narendra Singh and his acomplices. (2). Second prayer is regarding restoration of possession of the valuable articles for which the petitioner had better alternative and efficacious remedy before the competent court and not before this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In case of Gopi Lal Teli vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. (1), Full Bench of five Honble Judges of this Court held that when there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the parties then this court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (3). This petition is filed before this Court on 23.10.98 for an FIR registered by the petitioners side before the Police Station Sadar, Bikaner for the commission of an offence alleged to have been committed by the private respondents on 10.10.98 in noon hours. It is very difficult to assume by anyone including this Court that the investigation will not be thorough and fair. It is true that the police agency is required to investigate the cases as early as possible but at the same time it should be also thorough investigation. It appears that the petitioners are under some mis-conception that the local police is not properly investigating the case. It can not be according to their desire or wish. One can not insist or expect an investi- gation to be made in his favour and in the manner in which he wants. It was submi- tted by learned counsel Shri Bajwa that the petitioners do not expect an honest, effective and forth-right investigation in the complaint lodged by them. For that there is no foundation at all. It is simply their imagination. It was submi- tted by learned counsel Shri Bajwa that the petitioners do not expect an honest, effective and forth-right investigation in the complaint lodged by them. For that there is no foundation at all. It is simply their imagination. It appears that after lodging formal complaint before the police, within no time they made up their mind to see that their complaints be investigated by the CBI. If this contention of Mr. Baj- wa is accepted then in almost all the cases, the complainants, who file the complaint before the Police, will come with such request that the CBI be directed to investigate into the matter. Hence, such request cannot be granted. There is no cogent material to show that in the instant case, the police is deliberately helping the accused and not properly investigating the case. In absence of such material, this Court cannot exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (4). The fact that this petition is filed within ten days of the occurrence shows that before the effective investigation is completed by the police, the petitioners have lost their faith in the police without any strong reasons. That apart, there is an affidavit filed by the other side in which such allegations have been controverted by the State. Learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Jangid has also stated before the Court that the police is impartially investigating the case and it will submit its report as early as possible, may be within two or three months; provided the complainant made their witnesses available for recording their statements. (5). Thus, on the ground of alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner and also that highly disputed question of facts are involved in this petition and that the petitioners have failed to establish that it is an exceptional case in which this Court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed (6). Before parting, I must state that the learned counsel for the parties have cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in their favour as to whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or not. Before parting, I must state that the learned counsel for the parties have cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in their favour as to whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or not. But, as stated above, the petitioner has failed to establish that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the judgments cited by both the parties have not been mentioned and discussed in detail. (7). In view of the above discussions, this petition fails and is dismissed. End of the Volume 1999(1)