JUDGMENT: Raj Mani Chauhan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased: 1. To quash the charge-sheet dated 09.8.2007 and order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Balrampur and all further proceedings instituted upon the charge-sheet. 1. To quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 465 of 2007 converted into Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2008 instituted upon the charge-sheet dated 09.08.2007 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Balrampur. 2. To pass such order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 2. From a perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of written report filed by the opposite party no. 2-Arif Anwar Hashimi, S/o Sri A.G. Hashimi, R/o Sadullapur, P.S. Sadulla Nagar, District Balrampur, police of Police Station Sadulla Nagar, District Balrampur registered a case at Crime No. 164/2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer who after collection of the evidence during the course of investigation found, prima facie, evidence in support of commission of offence against the accused consequently he submitted charge-sheet against the accused which has been challenged by the accused in this petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is the police was not fairly investigating the case. The accused, therefore, represented before the State Government who vide order dated 27.2.2007 transferred the investigation to the CBCID. The CBCID was investigating the case. The CBCID during the investigation of case collected evidence too but the police ignoring the transfer order passed by the State Government investigated the case and submitted the impugned charge-sheet against the accused. 3. The accused, therefore, represented before the State Government who vide order dated 27.2.2007 transferred the investigation to the CBCID. The CBCID was investigating the case. The CBCID during the investigation of case collected evidence too but the police ignoring the transfer order passed by the State Government investigated the case and submitted the impugned charge-sheet against the accused. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the medical examination report of the injured collected by the CBCID shows that no fire arm injury was found on the injured (Annexure A-31 page 331) while the civil police during the investigation collected another medical examination report of the injured (Annexure A-31 page 332) in this report it appears that the injured has sustained fire arm injuries. There are two contradictory medical reports, it appears that the police has not fairly investigated the case. In fact, there is no sufficient evidence against the accused to show his involvement in commission of the offence. The charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has already petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the impugned charge-sheet which has been dismissed by another bench of this Court. The petitioner has now moved the second petition which cannot be heard by this Court. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the Investigating Officer after collection of the evidence found, prima facie, sufficient evidence in support of commission of offence by the accused consequently he has submitted charge-sheet and the impugned charge-sheet in my opinion does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, the same cannot be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier peitition was withdrawn by him with liberty to file fresh petition, therefore, this petition can be heard by this Court. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. I have gone through the documents available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier peitition was withdrawn by him with liberty to file fresh petition, therefore, this petition can be heard by this Court. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. I have gone through the documents available on record. The Investigating Officer of the case during the course of investigation found, prima facie, evidence in support of commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act consequently he submitted charge-sheet against the accused and the learned Magistrate on the basis of impugned charge-sheet has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused which in my opinion does not suffer from any illegality and it does not call for any interference. The petition has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.