JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No. 161 of 2005 dated 13th July, 2005 registered at Police Station Mangalpur (Derapur), District Kanpur Dehat, U.P., under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short called as “I.P.C.”) and the petitioner’s complaint dated 13th July, 2005 recorded on 14th July, 2005 vide G.D. Entry No. 27, under Section 302, I.P.C., to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter in short called as “C.B.I.”), the respondent No. 3 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case are given hereunder. Brother of the petitioner was a political worker. In 2001 a first information report (hereinafter in short called as “F.I.R.”) was registered against him on the complaint of another person. However, on investigation the allegations levelled against him were found unsustainable and final report was submitted in the case. The petitioner’s brother was also a dealer of kerosene oil. It is contended that the Superintendent of Police, who by name has been made party as respondent No. 2 herein, has a relation with another stockist dealer of kerosene oil of the locality. By virtue of such relation the other stockist was showing influence, an enmity had been developed between him and the deceased. On the fateful day some of the persons fired upon the brother of the petitioner when he died. According to the petitioner, it was a planned conspiracy of the said Superintendent of Police. When a complaint was lodged against such Superintendent of Police, he became hostile. The petitioner’s complaint was not allowed to be registered on the date of occurrence. However, instead of recording such F.I.R. the police authorities have recorded another F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 161 of 2005, whereunder one constable is shown as complainant. However, G.D. entry was made only on 14th July, 2005 after various efforts. Grounds in the G.D. entry are mentioned in the paragraph-17 of the writ petition. Another F.I.R. was lodged in respect of the other incident on 9th September, 2005 under Sections 395/397, I.P.C. 3. However, G.D. entry was made only on 14th July, 2005 after various efforts. Grounds in the G.D. entry are mentioned in the paragraph-17 of the writ petition. Another F.I.R. was lodged in respect of the other incident on 9th September, 2005 under Sections 395/397, I.P.C. 3. However, we find from the record that a writ petition, being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 297 of 2005 (Shiv Nayak Singh v. State of U.P. and others) was filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18th November, 2005 with the direction that the petitioner may avail such remedies as are available to him in law. The order is set out hereunder : “Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may avail such remedies as are available to him in law.” 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before this Court on the basis of the judgement reported in 1999 Cri. L.J. 3523, Munir Alam v. Union of India and others, that writ Court is the appropriate Court to pass an order to transfer investigation to other agency. In such judgement three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court held that the manner in which the inquiry was got conducted by the State Government shows that the indulgence shown by this Court to the State Government to have the matter investigated by some independent agency etc. was misused. The State Government, it appears, tried to cloud the entire issue by getting an enquiry conducted by those two officers and its action does not stand proper scrutiny. To say the least, the manner in which the State has acted after the report was submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, does not reflect well and appears to be an attempt to, once again, cover up the lapses pointed out by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. At such stage, the Supreme Court was pleased to direct the Director of C.B.I. to hold the enquiry/investigation through an officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.). 5. At such stage, the Supreme Court was pleased to direct the Director of C.B.I. to hold the enquiry/investigation through an officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.). 5. However, in the instant case, an order was passed by the Supreme Court dismissing the writ petition on 18th November, 2005 with an observation that the petitioner may avail such remedies as are available to him in law. The petitioner did not wait but immediately thereafter only on 3rd December, 2005 filed this writ petition before this High Court to get the direction to send the matter for the purpose of investigation by the C.B.I. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Magistrate has limited power as regards Sections 173 (1), 2(ii), (8) and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter in short called as “Cr.P.C.”). No power lies to transfer any investigation from an agency to another. But writ Court possesses such power at any stage of the proceedings. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has strongly objected to the submission of the writ petition by taking a plea that there is serious concealment of facts by the petitioner. In this case, investigation is already complete. Charge-sheet has already been submitted. Cognizance has already been taken by the Court. Session trial has already started. 8. So far as this writ petition is concerned, one of the controversy arose in entertaining the same when the Supreme Court refused to entertain such writ petition. The petitioner contended that the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the writ petition cannot preclude the petitioner from taking steps in accordance with law. This writ petition is the appropriate application on that score. 9. In State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei, AIR 1996 SC 2124 , it was held that dismissal of a special leave petition by a non-speaking order which does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to acceptance of the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against. The effect of such non-speaking order of dismissal without anything more only means that Supreme Court has decided only that it is not a fit case where the special leave petition should be granted. Such an order does not constitute law laid down by the Supreme Court for the purpose of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 10. The effect of such non-speaking order of dismissal without anything more only means that Supreme Court has decided only that it is not a fit case where the special leave petition should be granted. Such an order does not constitute law laid down by the Supreme Court for the purpose of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 10. According to us, a person cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. He cannot be allowed to say that there is no bar in proceeding with this writ petition since the order is a non-speaking order and, on the other hand, to say that by virtue of the observation of the Supreme Court he can proceed in accordance with law and this writ petition is the appropriate proceeding. 11. However, let us now consider in further the necessity of transferring the case/investigation from one agency to another at this stage. As per 2004 (4) SCC 158 , Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others, it is one of the salutary principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but seen to be done. However, mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case or that there are general allegations of a surcharged atmosphere against a particular community alone does not suffice. The Court has to see whether apprehension is reasonable or not. The state of mind of the person who entertains the apprehension no doubt is a relevant factor. But the Court must be fully satisfied about the existence of such conditions which would render inevitably impossible the holding of a fair and impartial trial, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations that may ultimately undermine the confidence of a reasonable and right-thinking citizen, in the justice-delivery system. The apprehension must appear to the Court to be reasonable one. 12. It is true to say that High Court possesses its power to direct the C.B.I. for investigation as per the ratio of the Judgement reported in AIR 1985 SC 195 , State of West Bengal and others v. Sampat Lal and others and JT 2002 (Suppl. 1) SC 286, Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engg. Services, U.P. and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, but it is depending upon the factual circumstances of the case. 1) SC 286, Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engg. Services, U.P. and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, but it is depending upon the factual circumstances of the case. This Court while deciding the matter in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2006, Smt. Alka Rai and another v. Union of India and others, 2006(5) ADJ 199 (DB) considered all the points in the judgement and order dated 23rd May, 2006 and ultimately sent the matter for the purpose of investigation through C.B.I, in a situation when the charge-sheet/final report was forwarded to the committal Court. Even thereafter this Court was pleased to direct to obtain leave from the committal Court, if any cognizance has been taken in the matter. It is also significant to note that in an earlier writ petition, the Court had given the opportunity to the State to consider the cause of forwarding the matter to C.B.I. within the specified period but when the State failed, then alone the aforesaid order was passed. Therefore, such distinguishing feature of the judgement cannot be overlooked. Such order dated 23rd May, 2006 is reported to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, reference of Smt. Aika Rai (supra) was also made in another criminal matter being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 967 of 2006, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(8) ADJ 310 (DB) in the order dated 17th October, 2006, but even thereafter the Court refused to pass such extreme order of transfer on the facts and circumstances of the case available therein, however, the matter was sent back to the State giving certain guidelines to dispose of the representation without further delay and for shifting the matter, if any, to any other investigating agency. There is no doubt that the Court has power, but the Court utilizes such power very sparingly in the rarest of rare cases upon verification of the facts and circumstances of the case and that too at a stage where investigation can be sent unlike the present one. In 2001 (2) BLJ 820, Rajesh and others v. Ramdeo and others, a two Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court held that when an investigating agency has already filed the charge-sheet on the basis of which the accused persons are being proceeded with, if any further materials are available, the Court may alter the charge framed. In 2001 (2) BLJ 820, Rajesh and others v. Ramdeo and others, a two Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court held that when an investigating agency has already filed the charge-sheet on the basis of which the accused persons are being proceeded with, if any further materials are available, the Court may alter the charge framed. In the circumstances, if any order is passed by the High Court in respect of the investigation, the same would be treated as overstepping its jurisdiction. There the Supreme Court held that it is needless to mention, power of the investigating agency to have any further investigation exercised under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. is not being taken away by such order. In this case one position is very important that a session trial has already been started. 13. The petitioner relying upon the five Judges’ Bench judgement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 1933 , Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc. and a three Judges’ Bench judgement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 672 , M/s. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. and another, etc. etc. v. State of Orissa and others, wanted to establish that when the earlier Division Bench has passed the order, the similar order is likely to be passed having binding effect upon the Court. We are of the view that there is no doubt and dispute with regard to such well-settled principle that an order of the Division Bench is binding upon the subsequent Division Bench, but such order can be passed upon comparable verification of the facts and circumstances of the case not blindly. We have already discussed the distinguishing features. Further discussions appear to be academic in nature. 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that the petitioner is neither an eye-witness nor an accused nor complainant. Therefore, what is his locus to make this writ petition, is not understandable. In reply thereto, the petitioner contended that even then he is entitled to enquire about the investigation because there is every likelihood that it will be done in a slipshod manner. 15. Therefore, what is his locus to make this writ petition, is not understandable. In reply thereto, the petitioner contended that even then he is entitled to enquire about the investigation because there is every likelihood that it will be done in a slipshod manner. 15. However, when we find that investigation is over and the same is part and parcel of the Court of trial, the question of investigation cannot be said to be pending either before the appropriate police authority or situation is not such that investigating agency has just forwarded the charge-sheet/final report, if any, to the Court as happened in the case of Smt. Alka Rai (supra). Here, we repeat and say that not only the cognizance has been taken on the report of the police but after framing the charges now trial has been started before the appropriate Court, and if at the stage we direct that the investigation will be started as because the High Court holds the power of administration of justice under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will be overstepping of its jurisdiction. Moreover, we hold and say that when writ petition was examined by the Supreme Court and dismissed by holding that the petitioner may go before the appropriate Court of law and the appropriate Court of law is in seisin of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the matter at all. Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. However, no order is passed as to costs. Honble Shiv Shanker J.—I agree. ————