JUDGMENT Mr. Gurdev Singh, J.: - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by Sita Ram -complainant, for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for further investigation of the case arising out of FIR No. 141 dated 6.5.2011 registered under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, in Police Station Kalanaur District Rohtak or handing over the investigation to some independent agency preferably to CBI. 2. It has been contended therein that the FIR was got registered against Balbir @ Bali also, who is an Ex-MLA, who along with a large number of his relations and supporters attacked the complainant and others, while armed with lethal weapons and the injuries so caused to them lead to the death of Vishnu. This Ex-MLA is very influential person and on that account police faced great difficulty in arresting him and his supporters. It was only under the media pressure that he was arrested on 27.5.2011. As per the version given in the FIR, this Balbir @ Bali had fired a shot resulting into the death of Vishnu and that fact was stated by two of the witnesses; namely, Navin and Ram Mehar, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the investigation, the revolver of the said accused was recovered and it was found that fatal bullet had been fired from the same. However, the investigating agency, under the pressure of the said accused, took a U-turn and changed the statements of Navin and Ram Mehar and fabricated their supplementary statements, in which the names of Dhanpat, Sunil, Dinesh, Rohtash, Ravinder and Sombir were added and role of Balbir Singh @ Bali was changed. He came to know about the deletion of names of some of the accused and addition of some others as accused, when the police report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. He came to know about the deletion of names of some of the accused and addition of some others as accused, when the police report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency did not conduct fair and impartial investigation and during the investigation changed the statement of the prosecution so as exonerate Balbir @ Bali and to implicate innocent persons and that those prosecution witnesses will be facing the agony of confrontation during their examination in the Court and that itself is a ground for further investigation. 5. Further investigation can be ordered if the Court can prima facie reached at a conclusion that the fair and impartial investigation has not been conducted causing prejudice to the complainant or that investigating agency is making efforts to show undue favour to the accused party. Merely on the ground that the statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. containing the version different from the version of the complainant, cannot be made a ground for further investigation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation, so conducted by the investigating agency, he is not without any remedy and can file a private complaint so as to incorporate the facts which according to him are true and to show that the facts, as stated in the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. have been fabricated by the investigating agency. In fact the petitioner-complainant wants re-investigation and not further investigation, which is not permissible. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. --------------