JUDGMENT and ORDER T. Vaiphei, J. 1. In this writ petition filed by the High Court Bar Association, Manipur and another, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether or not the FIR 228(6)11 Prompat PS. under Section323/357/34 IPC registered on 24.6.2011 should be handed over to the C.B.I., which is the premier investigating agency of this country, for investigation. According to the petitioners, the controversy arose out of the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 2, who is an employee/attendant of, and is engaged in distributing the cause lists of this Court to the members of, the High Court Bar Association, Manipur i.e., the petitioner No. 1 and has claimed that he had been repeatedly detained by some armed Police personnel, who are deployed in and around Wangkhei Durga Puja Lampak, Imphal East District without any rhyme or reason even after he showed them his identity card issued by the petitioner No. 1. He explained to these police personnel that he was on duty to distribute the cause lists of this Court to the advocates/members of the petitioner No. 1; by showing to them the bundle of the cause lists carried by him. On 9.6.2011 at about 7-20 P.M., he was once again stopped by these police personnel, the occupants of Gypsy vehicle belonging to Manipur Police bearing registration number MN-1/W-3632 when he was proceeding along the Wangkhei Kiongba Road by his bicycle for distribution of the cause lists. This time, he was assaulted by them for about 20 minutes on the road by branding him as a member of PREPAK, a banned/unlawful organization. They also threatened his life by pointing their firearms over his head and forced him to confess that he is a member of the said banned outfit or otherwise he would be shot dead. His plea to them to stop their assault by showing his identity card and the cause lists carried by him did not yield any desired result. On the contrary, one of the concerned police personnel snatched away the bundle of the cause lists from his hand and threw away the same towards water drains. He was also warned not to distribute the cause lists thenceforth. Fearing for his life, he did not distribute the cause lists for the sitting of this Court on 10.6.2011. On the contrary, one of the concerned police personnel snatched away the bundle of the cause lists from his hand and threw away the same towards water drains. He was also warned not to distribute the cause lists thenceforth. Fearing for his life, he did not distribute the cause lists for the sitting of this Court on 10.6.2011. The aforesaid incident was reported by him to the petitioner No. 1 through the written report dated 10.6.2011. 2. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1, on the basis of the said written report of the petitioner No. 2, convened an emergency meeting on 10.6.2011 at about 11.30 A.M., and a number of resolutions were passed in that meeting, among others, condemning the high handedness of the police and demanding immediate action against the culprits. Copies of the resolutions together with the written report of the petitioner No. 2 were immediately communicated to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No. 3 and some other police officials of the Imphal East District thereafter met the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 and gave him an oral assurance that appropriate action would be initiated against the police personnel involved in the incident. In the meantime, the Officer-in-Charge of Porompat Police Station, who is arraigned as respondent 4, instead of disciplining the erring police personnel, forcibly entered the Office of the petitioner No. 1 on 10.6.2011 when the emergency meeting was going on and threatened the petitioner No. 2 with dire consequences by showing his right index finger and by saying the following words in vernacular: Ei pharadi phabani, phatrabadi phattabani, Shenga haiyu ei yaubara? which in English is translated as follows: I am a good person but I can be very bad also. Better tell the truth whether I am involved. This conduct of the respondent No. 4 was considered by members of the petitioner No. 1 to be highly reprehensible and was recorded in their resolution dated 10.6.2011 with a request to the State authorities to take appropriate action against him. Better tell the truth whether I am involved. This conduct of the respondent No. 4 was considered by members of the petitioner No. 1 to be highly reprehensible and was recorded in their resolution dated 10.6.2011 with a request to the State authorities to take appropriate action against him. When the respondent No. 3 finally expressed his inability to find out the real culprits, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners for directing the respondent authorities to hand over the case to the CBI for a fair and an impartial investigation into the case so that the real culprits are duly identified and brought to justice. 3. The writ petition is contested by the State-respondents through the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who have now filed their joint affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that on receipt of the complaint dated 10.6.2011 of the petitioner No. 2, the respondent No. 3 and other police officials approached the President and Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 and gave their assurance that appropriate action would be initiated against the police personnel in the matter. It is asserted by them that their inability to initiate action against the real culprits is due to the anomalous nature of the complaint. The registration of the police Gypsy allegedly involved in the case was identified by the petitioner No. 2 to be MN-01/W-3632 which is allotted to the respondent No. 4 whereas the alleged assault was caused by a Havildar of Commando, but no Commando personnel ever rode on the vehicle allotted to the respondent No. 4 at the relevant time. Several oral requests were made by the respondent No. 3 for an amicable settlement with the members of the petitioner No. 1 but to no effect. A high level meeting headed by DIGP, (HQ & ADM) was held on 13.6.2011 instructing all the officers and men to make all out efforts to identify the culprits and to prevent such unwanted incident in future. Instructions in message form vide No. 1/MISC/DIGP/(K-1)2011/2345, dated 14.6.2011 was also circulated to all officials and men, pickets and check points to pay highest regard to High Court matters and extend all possible help to the staff of the High Court for discharging their official duties. They have also proposed for an amicable settlement of the case through discussion at a mutually accepted place and time. They have also proposed for an amicable settlement of the case through discussion at a mutually accepted place and time. On 10.6.2011, the respondent No. 3 had sent Addl. S.P. (Ops) & OC Commando along with photographs for identification of the concerned police personnel deployed with the petitioner No. 1 to meet the members of the association as well as to examine the petitioner No. 2. However, the petitioner No. 2 failed to identify the photographs. 4. It is also pleaded that subsequently, on the same evening, two police officers along with the petitioner No. 2 accompanied by three members of the petitioner No. 1 visited the P.O. The statements of all relevant mobile/team commanders were recorded by the Addl. SP (Ops), Imphal Esat, Shri N. Raju, ASI, who was detailed at Wangkhei Puja Lampak and the OC, Porompat PS (respondent 4) along with his escorts were also examined at the office chamber of the respondent No. 3. In the course of examination, the concerned police personnel were paraded in the office complex of DHQ I/E for identification by the petitioner No. 2 without disclosing his presence, but he failed to identify any of the culprits. It is also the case of the answering respondents that an F.I.R. bearing No. 228(6)11 Porompat P.S. under Sections 323/357/34 IPC has been registered on 24.6.2011. The delay in lodging the FIR is occasioned by the need to conduct preliminary enquiry into the allegations so that necessary departmental proceedings can be held against the delinquent officers(s) by a responsible officer as the complaint is against Government servants. It is asserted by the answering respondents that no commando personnel are attached to the respondent No. 4. Moreover, the petitioner No. 2 could not identify the escort party of the respondent No. 4 paraded before him. In fact, the petitioner could not identify the culprits among the nearest team deployed near the place of occurrence. It is thus contended by the answering respondents that as the case is sensitive in nature and a police personnel is allegedly involved in the assault, the case is being proposed to be handed over to an independent agency i.e. C.I.D. (Crime Branch), Manipur for fair investigation of the case. As the writ petition is ill-conceived and devoid of merits, according to the answering respondents, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. As the writ petition is ill-conceived and devoid of merits, according to the answering respondents, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. HNK Singh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, maintains that keeping in view the allegations made against police personnel, to allow the CID (Crime Branch) to investigate into the case will amount to an appeal from Caesar to Caesar, and no impartial and effective investigation can be made by the CID (CB), who are admittedly under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Director General of Police, Manipur. According to the learned senior counsel, the fact that the police, albeit belatedly, has registered a regular case under Section 323/357/34 IPC on the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 2 goes to show that a prima facie case has been made out to launch a full-scale investigation in the complaint of the petitioner No. 2. He also contends that the fact that the case is sensitive in nature has also been admitted by the answering respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition is more than enough to hand over the case to the CBI for a fair and an impartial investigation into the case: the CID(Crime Branch) cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as an impartial investigating authority in so far as this case involving police personnel concerned. He reminds this Court that the functioning of this Court was paralysed for some days by the strike organised by the members of the petitioner No. 1 to highlight the indifferent attitude of the State-respondents. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the acts complained against indirectly amounts to an interference in the due administration of justice by this Court, and to ensure that such an incident does not occur in future, the real culprits must be found out and brought to justice, which can be achieved only if the case is investigated by the premier investigative agency of this country. The learned counsel relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 to fortify his submissions. Refuting the contentions of the learned senior counsel, Mr. The learned counsel relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 to fortify his submissions. Refuting the contentions of the learned senior counsel, Mr. R.S. Reisang, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that this is not a fit case for directing the CBI to carry out the investigation inasmuch as the allegations made in the complaint does not make out a prima facie case nor does it disclose a sensitive case or grave cases of misappropriation involving huge public money as otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a number of cases of routine nature. He also submits that this Court does not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is an alternative remedy of conducting an investigation by an impartial body CID (Crime Branch), which cannot be influenced by the answering respondents. In support of his contentions, the learned State counsel relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 ; (ii) Secretary Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521 and (iii) Common Cause, a registered society Vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 . He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. What are the cases for which investigation of a criminal offence can be handed over to the CBI is the issue in this case. If a person has a grievance that a police station is not registering FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3)CrPC by an application in writing. Even if it does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation (See Sakiri Vasu case). The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation (See Sakiri Vasu case). No doubt, the Magistrate cannot order investigation by CBI, but the Apex Court or this Court has power under Article 32 or Article 226 respectively to order investigation of a case by the CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them. It is true that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well-settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. In my opinion, the alternative remedy, however, should be equally efficacious otherwise the right of a citizen to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for genuine reason will be rendered illusory. The legal position is explained by the Apex Court in Sahngoo Ram Arya case (supra) in the following manner: 5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this court in the case of Common Cause. This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus: 174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate 'any other offence' is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is prima facie, found to have been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to concept and philosophy of 'LIFE' and 'LIBERTY' guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such a direction would be contrary to concept and philosophy of 'LIFE' and 'LIBERTY' guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. The direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of 'LIFE' has been explained in a manner which has infused 'LIFE' into the letters of Article 21. 6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law abiding-citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of "ifs" and "buts" and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by law as laid down in the case of Common Cause. [Underlined for emphasis] It is against the backdrop of the legal principles enunciated above that I propose to examine the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. The fact that a regular case has been registered by the police on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 2 is now disclosed by the State-respondents in paragraph 8 of their counter-affidavit, will go to show that a prima facie case of Section 323/357/34 IPC for assaulting an employee of the petitioner No. 1 distributing the cause lists of this Court is established: who are the culprits in that incident is yet to be identified. The petitioner No. 2 has indicted the police personnel belonging to Manipur for the assault. The petitioner No. 2 has indicted the police personnel belonging to Manipur for the assault. The respondent authorities have also admitted that despite the sincere attempt made by them to find out the culprits, they are incapable of doing so vide paragraphs 9 of their affidavit-in-opposition. Yet, it is the allegations of the petitioners that that the culprits are none other than the personnel belonging to the Manipur Police and that the police authorities know the culprits, yet are shielding them and are also indulging in cover-up operation. In this situation of claims and denials made by the parties, a proposal has been made by the State-respondents in paragraph 11 of their counter-affidavit, which is as under: 11. That, with reference to para 29 of the writ petition, the answering Respondent humbly submits that since the case is of sensitive nature and the Police personnel is allegedly involved, the case is being proposed to be handed over to an independent investigation agency i.e. C.I.D.CB), Manipur for fair investigation of the case. 7. The complaint was lodged by the petitioner No. 2 as early as 10.6.2011. When a regular case was not registered immediately, strong protests after protests were made by members of the petitioner No. 1: in fact, the functioning of the High Court was also paralysed for several days. The situation should have been handled with the seriousness and sensitivity it deserves by handing over the investigation to C.I.D. (CB), which, according to the respondent authorities, is an independent body. In my opinion, the proposal, howsoever sincere it may be, has now come too late in the day inasmuch as a feeling of mutual distrust and suspicion has by now developed between the parties. The proposal made by the respondent authorities has been flatly rejected by the petitioner No. 1. In other words, the petitioner No. 1 is not willing to trust the CID (CB) to investigate the case impartially as, according to it, it is another instrumentality of the police department functioning under the effective control and supervision of the Director General of Police, Manipur. In this vicious atmosphere of distrust and suspicion, in my judgment, the investigation of the case by the CID(CB) may not inspire the confidence of the members of the petitioner No. 1. But I must hasten to add that this does not mean that the CID(CB) is not an impartial investigating agency. In this vicious atmosphere of distrust and suspicion, in my judgment, the investigation of the case by the CID(CB) may not inspire the confidence of the members of the petitioner No. 1. But I must hasten to add that this does not mean that the CID(CB) is not an impartial investigating agency. All that I can say is that the apprehension of the petitioner No. 1 that accepting the investigation of the case by the CID(CB) will, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, amount to an appeal from Caesar to Caesar, cannot be said to be entirely misplaced or misconceived. The fact that the case is of a sensitive nature is also admitted by the respondent authorities as noticed from paragraph 11 of their counter-affidavit reproduced herein above. In the view taken that I have taken, I am constrained to observe that the case is not a normal case, but the pleadings of the parties do disclose sufficient material to justify the conclusion that an investigation of the case by CBI is desirable and well-justified. This is the only means to find out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with respect to the incident on the night of 9.6.2011. 8. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The State-respondents are directed to hand over investigation of the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 2, which has now been registered as F.I.R. No. 228(6)11 Porompat P.S. under Section 323/357/34 IPC, to the C.B.I. for an impartial and speedy investigation of the case within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this judgment. On receipt of the case file from the State-respondents, the C.B.I. will make an endeavour to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay. Nothing stated in the foregoing shall, however, be construed as an observation of this Court on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. No costs. A copy of this judgment shall also be despatched to the Director of C.B.I., New Delhi for necessary compliance. Petition allowed.