Judgment A.P. LAVANDE, J. Heard Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.81/2010; Mr. S. Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2/2011; Mr. M. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.42/2011, Mr. C. A. Fereira, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Goa and Mr. Joseph Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 2. All these three writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment since they are inter-connected. 3. With the consent of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and learned Special Public Prosecutor, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Hence Rule. Heard forthwith. 4. All the three writ petitions were initially filed before the learned Single Judge, who passed orders from time to time. By an order dated 3rd August, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, all these three writ petitions were ordered to be placed before Division Bench of this Court, having regard to the reliefs sought in the three writ petitions. 5. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of these petitions are as under : On 19th February, 2008, at about 19.35 hours, about 1000 people gathered in front of Panaji Police Station under the leadership of the petitioner in Criminal Writ petition No.81/2010, demanding suspension of the Police Inspector of Panaji Police Station. The said petitioner gave provocative speech against the police and thereafter, the mob indulged in violence, causing damage to the property in the police station, as well as injuries to several police officers. At about 22.00 hrs., Police Sub-Inspector, Shri Tushar Lotlikar, attached to the Panaji Police Station, lodged an FIR No.57/2008 under Sections 143, 147, 333, 435, 432, 323, 324, 325, 427, 307 read with Sections 120-B, 149 and 34 of IPC., against the petitioners and 25 known accused and 500 unknown persons. According to the prosecution, on the same day, at about 22.05 hours, there was an incident of stone pelting on account of which damage to the bungalows of the said petitioner at Taleigao and Miramar was caused. 6. At about 22.20 hours, the said petitioner and his wife Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate, were arrested at Panaji Police Station in Crime No. 57/2008. 6. At about 22.20 hours, the said petitioner and his wife Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate, were arrested at Panaji Police Station in Crime No. 57/2008. Thereafter, at about 22.40 hours, the said petitioner, Tony Rodrigues, Petitioner No.2 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2/11 & Amit, son of Atanasio Monserrate, along with 100 people from Taleigao constituency, demanded release of Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate and others arrested by the Panaji Police and assaulted the police personnel with deadly weapons while discharging their lawful duty. 7. According to the prosecution, Tony Rodrigues, who sustained injury due to accidental fall, was taken for medical treatment at Vintage Hospital Panaji. At about 23.00 hours, FIR No. 58/2008 was registered by PI Panaji Police Station Mr. Sudesh R. Naik under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 323, read with 149 IPC. At 01.40 hours, on 20.2.2008, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.81/2010 was arrested in Crime No. 57/08. On the same day, at about 1.45 hours, FIR No.59/2008 was lodged by Shri Shamba Sawant, Dy. S.P., Bicholim under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 332, 427 read with 149 IPC. Thereafter, Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate was arrested in Crime No.57/08 and was referred to the Goa Medical College for medical examination. 8. Mr. Atanasio Monserrate, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.81/2010, was released on bail on 21st February, 2008. Atanasio Monserrate and his wife Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate filed a report addressed to the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Goa & Station House Officer, Panaji Police Station alleging commission of offences under sections 307, 321, 322, 329, 325, 327, 338, 340, 342, 352, 354, 363, 380, 382, 392, 394, 398, 420, 447, 448, 449, 451, 452 read with 120B, 34, 146 and 148 of IPC. In the said report, allegations were made against the police officials. 9. On 1st March, 2008, Jenifer Monserrate, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the Police Inspector, Panaji Police Station with a prayer to treat the report dated 22.2.2008 as an FIR. On 3rd March, 2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji passed an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. & directed the officer incharge of Panaji Police Station to register FIR. 10. On 10th March, 2008, Atanasio Monserrate and Tony Rodrigues filed Writ Petition Nos.146/2008 and 147/2008, respectively before the Division Bench of this Court, seeking several reliefs. On 3rd March, 2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji passed an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. & directed the officer incharge of Panaji Police Station to register FIR. 10. On 10th March, 2008, Atanasio Monserrate and Tony Rodrigues filed Writ Petition Nos.146/2008 and 147/2008, respectively before the Division Bench of this Court, seeking several reliefs. In the meantime, the State challenged the order dated 3rd March, 2008 passed by the learned JMFC, by filing revision before the Sessions Court, Panaji, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji who, by an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 33/2008, dismissed the revision application. Before passing of the said order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Writ Petition No.146/2008 and 147/2008 came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench on 25th March, 2008, passed the following order : “Heard. Rule. 2. As regards the interim relief is concerned, the learned Advocate General states that already crime has been registered being FIR No. 59/2008 in relation to the alleged damage to the property of the petitioners. He also states that there is also another crime registered being FIR No.57/2008 in relation to the incident relating to unlawful assembly, attack on the Police Station and damage to the private & Government property. He further states that as regards the grievance of the petitioners made under letter dated 22/2/2008, a copy of which is to be found at page 56 of Writ Petition No.146/2008, will also be investigated along with the investigation under FIR No.59/2008. He further states that soon the investigation in both the matters will be entrusted to the CBI. We accept the said statements. Consequently, there is no question of grant of any interim relief as such at this stage.” 11. Pursuant to the statements made by the learned Advocate General, the Government of Goa issued the Notification dated 6th May, 2008, transferring the investigation of Crime Nos.57/08, 58/08 & 59/08 and all the complaints mentioned in Annexure I, to the CBI. The Notification reads thus : “No.16/7/2008-HD(G) Home Department (General) Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim Goa Dated : 06/05/2008. Pursuant to the statements made by the learned Advocate General, the Government of Goa issued the Notification dated 6th May, 2008, transferring the investigation of Crime Nos.57/08, 58/08 & 59/08 and all the complaints mentioned in Annexure I, to the CBI. The Notification reads thus : “No.16/7/2008-HD(G) Home Department (General) Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim Goa Dated : 06/05/2008. NOTIFICATION In pursuance of the provisions of section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Government of Goa is pleased to accord consent to the extension of powers & jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Goa for the investigation of FIR No.57/2008, 58/2008 & 59/2008, all dated 19.02.2008, registered at the Panaji Police Station, for the offences punishable under different sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) in the matter of violent attack on Panaji Police Station by morcha lead by Shri Atanacio alias Babush Monserrate, Member of Legislative Assembly of Goa and subsequent events in connection with this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 332, 323, 324, 435, 325, 427, 307, r/w 120(B), 148 & 34 of IPC in FIR No.57/2008, sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 323 r/w 149 of IPC in FIR No.58/2008 and sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 332, 427 r/w 149 of IPC of FIR No.59/2008 and any other offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts. And also the complaints filed by different persons in respect of the same incident or transaction consequent to same incident as per Annexure-1. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa Sd/- (Siddhivinayak Surendra Naik) Under Secretary (Home) …..” 12. Mr. Atanasio Monserrate and another filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No (s). 3730/2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the order passed by the Division Bench, refusing the interim relief. The Apex Court, by its order dated 4th May, 2008, dismissed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, by passing the following order : “Since the order of the High Court makes it clear that the grievances of the petitioners shall be looked into and investigation shall be done by the CBI, we find no reason to interfere. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 13. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 13. The CBI took over the investigation of the cases and the complaints on 29th October, 2009. In respect of Crime No. 57/08, the CBI filed a charge-sheet against Atanasio Monserrate and 36 others before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji which was registered as Criminal Case No. 230/2009/A. The charge-sheet is filed under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 153, 324, 325, 326, 332, 333, 427 and 435 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. On 30th November, 2011, the CBI filed a closure report in respect of Crime No.59/08. On 31st May, 2010, a charge sheet was filed in Crime No.58/08 under Section 353, r/w 34 of IPC against 3 accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji which is registered as Criminal Case No. 92/10/A. 14. Briefly, the case of the petitioners in the present three petitions is as under : It is the case of the petitioner Atanasio Monserrate in Writ Petition No.81/2010 that in terms of the directions given by the learned JMFC, Panaji to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the State was bound to register an FIR. FIR ought to have been registered pursuant to the report dated 22.2.2008 for setting the investigation into motion and in the absence of registration of an FIR, no investigation could have been carried out into the report lodged by him. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 ought to have registered the FIR and investigated the same together with Crime Nos. 57/2008, 58/2008 and 59/2008. According to the petitioner, the investigation in Crime No.57/2008 has been tainted and illegal & one sided. The petitioner, therefore, seeks setting aside of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.239/09/A before the Magistrate & constitution of a Special Investigating Team to investigate the Crime Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008, together with the petitioner's report dated 22.2.2008, after registering the FIR pursuant to the directions given by the learned JMFC. 15. The case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2/2011, is also on similar lines. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the report dated 22.2.2008, an FIR ought to have been registered. 15. The case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2/2011, is also on similar lines. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the report dated 22.2.2008, an FIR ought to have been registered. Pursuant to the report of 23rd February, 2008 lodged by petitioner No.3, FIR ought to have been registered and the case transferred to respondent No.1 CBI for investigation. It is further the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that the investigation by CBI is one sided and as such, serious prejudice would be caused to them if the proceedings in Criminal Case No.92/2010/A pending before the Magistrate are not stayed. The petitioners also seek quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No.92/10/A pending before the learned Magistrate and direction to constitute a Special Investigating Team to investigate Crime Nos.57, 58 and 59 of 2008, together with the report dated 22.2.2008 of petitioner No.1 and the report of Petitioner No.3 dated 23.2.2008. 16. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.42/2011 is also on similar lines. The petitioner therein has approached this Court with a prayer that the proceedings in Crime No.5/09 (originally registered as FIR No.59/08) before the JMFC, Panaji be quashed and a Special Investigating Team be constituted to investigate into the Crime Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008, together with the petitioner's report dated 22.2.2008, after registering the same as FIR. 17. On behalf of CBI, the respondent No.1, an affidavit is filed, inter alia, contending that the investigation has been carried out in Crime Nos. 57 and 58 of 2008, in accordance with law. It is the case of the CBI that the three incidents are separate incidents which occurred at three different times and have been investigated by the CBI. It is further the case of the CBI that the allegations contained in the reported dated 22.2.2008 filed by Atanasio Monserrate and his wife Jennifer Monserrate have been investigated by examining several witnesses and the investigation has revealed the commission of several offences by the accused persons, named in Crime Nos. 57/08 & 58/2008. But, in so far as Crime No.59/2008 and the report dated 22.2.2008 lodged by Mr. Atanasio Monserrate is concerned, no offence is disclosed and, therefore, summary has been filed before the learned Magistrate and notices have been already issued to Shri Atanasio Monserrate, as well as the Dy. S.P. Mr. 57/08 & 58/2008. But, in so far as Crime No.59/2008 and the report dated 22.2.2008 lodged by Mr. Atanasio Monserrate is concerned, no offence is disclosed and, therefore, summary has been filed before the learned Magistrate and notices have been already issued to Shri Atanasio Monserrate, as well as the Dy. S.P. Mr. Shamba Sawant by the learned Magistrate. It is, therefore, the case of the CBI that no case has been made out for constituting a Special Investigating Team to investigate Crime Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and the report lodged by petitioners No.1 and 3 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2/11. 18. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.81/2010 submitted that the investigation by CBI has been unfair and tainted. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Police Inspector, Panaji Police Station ought to have registered an FIR pursuant to the order dated 3rd March, 2008, passed by the learned JMFC, Panaji in Criminal Misc. Application No. 24/2008/B, which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji by order dated 26th March, 2008. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the PI, Panaji Police Station ought to have registered the FIR in terms of the order of the learned JMFC and only thereafter, the investigation could have been handed over to CBI to investigate the crime registered pursuant to the application filed by Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate, along with the FIR Nos. 57, 58, and 59 of 2009 lodged by the police officers. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there were rival versions regarding the incidents in question and, as such, the investigation by CBI could not have been carried out, without registering the FIR in terms of the directions given by the learned JMFC, Panaji. Learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the State Government & submitted that the stand of the State Government that the investigation into the complaint filed by Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate, has been carried out by CBI, cannot be accepted in the absence of any FIR. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation of Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate regarding the assault on her, has not been investigated by CBI and, therefore, the investigation is unfair, tainted, one-sided, & biased in favour of the Police Officers who filed the FIRs against the petitioners. In support of his submissions, Mr. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation of Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate regarding the assault on her, has not been investigated by CBI and, therefore, the investigation is unfair, tainted, one-sided, & biased in favour of the Police Officers who filed the FIRs against the petitioners. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nadkarni placed reliance upon a Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 12 SCC 254 . 19. Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2/2011, invited our attention to the pleadings and sequence of events and submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the learned JMFC., Panaji, on the application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate, the FIR ought to have been registered by the PI, Panaji Police Station. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once the direction was given by the learned JMFC. Under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the PI, Panaji Police Station was bound to register the FIR, which has not been complied with. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the investigation by CBI could have been carried out only after registration of the FIR in terms of the directions given by the learned JMFC. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that inspite of repeated efforts on the part of the petitioners, the respondents have not registered the FIR and CBI purported to investigate into the complaints filed by the petitioners without registration of the FIR which is impermissible in law. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the investigation by CBI is biased, unfair and with closed mind and, therefore, Criminal Case No.92/10/A, filed on the basis of Cr. No.58/08 is liable to be quashed and set aside and a Special Investigating Team be constituted to investigate the Cr. Nos. 57, 58 and 59/2008, together with petitioner No.1's complaint (FIR) dated 22.2.2008 and petitioner No.3's complaint dated 23.2.2008, after registering the said two complaints as an FIR. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the following Judgments : (1) Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar, (1997) 8 SCC 476 ; and (2) Mohd. Yousuf vs. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627 . 20. Mr. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the following Judgments : (1) Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar, (1997) 8 SCC 476 ; and (2) Mohd. Yousuf vs. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627 . 20. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 42/2011, submitted that pursuant to the directions given by the learned JMFC, Panaji, pursuant to application dated 22.2.2008, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., CBI was bound to register the FIR and thereafter carry out investigation. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that CBI has not investigated into the aspect of arrest of Amit Monserrate, son of Atanasio Monserrate, the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the investigation has been very restrictive and one sided. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the investigation carried out by CBI falsifies the FIR in Cr. No.57/08. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the closure report filed in Cr. No.59/08 is contrary to the conclusions arrived at by CBI in the course of investigation into Cr. No.57/08. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the arrest of Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate on 22nd February, 2008 is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and particularly, Section 46(4) of Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate was illegally arrested and wrongfully confined by the Panaji Police & there is absolutely no reference to the arrest of Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate in the closure report. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the proceedings in Cr.Nos. 5/09 (registered as FIR No.59/08) be quashed and set aside and a Special Investigating Team be constituted to investigate the three crimes, along with the petitioner's complaint (FIR) dated 22.2.2008, after registering the same as an FIR. 21. Per contra, Mr. C. A. Fereira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Goa, submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the State Government dated 6th May, 2008, the investigation in respect of FIR Nos. 21. Per contra, Mr. C. A. Fereira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Goa, submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the State Government dated 6th May, 2008, the investigation in respect of FIR Nos. 57, 58 and 59/08 dated 19th February, 2008 and any other offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts, and the complaints filed by different persons in respect of the same incident or transaction, was handed over to CBI and CBI has investigated into the three FIRs, as well as the complaints filed by different persons, including the petitioners in the three writ petitions. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the PI, Panaji Police, ought to have registered the FIR pursuant to the directions given by the JMFC, but submitted that non-registration of FIR cannot be treated as fatal, in view of the notification issued by the State Government, as well as the order dated 25th March, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions No.146 and 147 of 2008 filed by the petitioners herein. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that by the said order, the Division Bench of this Court has refused to grant any interim relief, in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General that the grievances of the petitioners made under letter dated 22.2.2008, would also be investigated, along with the investigation under FIR No.59/2008 by the CBI to whom the investigation was handed over. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Apex Court has also not interfered with the said order in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the petitioners and, as such, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, has attained finality. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted that no case has been made out for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and to constitute a Special Investigating Team to investigate afresh the three FIRs along with the complaints (FIRs) file by the petitioners. 22. Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of CBI, submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioners for constitution of a Special Investigating Team to investigate Crime Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and the report (complaint) lodged by the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2/2011. Mr. 22. Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of CBI, submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioners for constitution of a Special Investigating Team to investigate Crime Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and the report (complaint) lodged by the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2/2011. Mr. Vaz further submitted that he investigation by CBI has been neither biased, nor tainted, nor unfair and CBI has taken into consideration all the aspects while filing the charge-sheets in Crime Nos. 57 and 58/2008 and closure report in Crime No.59/2008. Mr. Vaz further submitted that the petitioners themselves sought investigation by CBI by filing Writ Petitions No.146 and 147/2008 & as such, the petitioners are not entitled to contend at this stage that the charge-sheets filed by CBI be quashed and the entire investigation be entrusted to a Special Investigating Team. Mr. Vaz further submitted that no fault can be found with CBI for investigating the Crime No.59/08 along with the complaint dated 22.2.2008 filed by the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2/2011 inasmuch as in terms of Notification dated 6th May, 2008 issued by the State of Goa, the investigation of Crime Nos.57/2008, 58/2008 and 59/2009 registered at Panaji Police Station, along with all the complaints filed by different persons in respect of the same incident or transaction mentioned in Annexure I to the notification, was handed over to CBI. Mr. Vaz further submitted that the Annexure I to the said Notification clearly discloses that the complaints filed by the petitioners were also referred for investigation by CBI and same have been investigated and as such, no fault can be found with CBI. Mr. Vaz further submitted that in terms of the order dated 25th March, 2008, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions No.146 and 147 of 2008, the investigation of Crime Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and all the complaints in relation to the incidents was handed over to CBI and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to contend now that the investigation be handed over to a Special Investigating Team by quashing the charge-sheets filed by CBI. Mr. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and all the complaints in relation to the incidents was handed over to CBI and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to contend now that the investigation be handed over to a Special Investigating Team by quashing the charge-sheets filed by CBI. Mr. Vaz further submitted that the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2/2011 even challenged the order dated 25th March, 2008 by filing Special Leave to Appeal to the Apex Court and the same was dismissed and, as such, the investigation carried out by CBI and the charge-sheets filed by CBI are not liable to be quashed at this stage. Mr. Vaz further submitted that in respect of 'C' summary filed in respect of Crime No.59/08, the petitioners are entitled to file objections pursuant to the notices issued by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, there is no case made out for quashing the charge-sheets filed by CBI. Mr. Vaz further submitted that the investigation in each crime, viz., Crime Nos. 57, 58 & 59/2009 can be carried out separately and, as such, no case has been made out by the petitioners for quashing the charge-sheets in Crime Nos. 57/2008 and 58/2008. Mr. Vaz further submitted that ordinarily only further investigation can be ordered by a Court and no reinvestigation, as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. In support of his submissions, Mr. Vaz placed reliance upon the following judgments : (a) Nathi Lal and ors., vs. State of U.P. and another, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Couret Cases 145; (b) K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223 ; and (c) Sivanmoorthy and ors., vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2010 (12) SCC 29 . 23. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon by the rival parties. 24. Before we deal with the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to refer to the Judgments relied upon by the rival parties. In the case of Madhu Bala (supra), the Apex Court has held that in case, the Magistrate gives a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the complaint transforms itself into an FIR and in such a case, the police is bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. In case of Mohd. In the case of Madhu Bala (supra), the Apex Court has held that in case, the Magistrate gives a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the complaint transforms itself into an FIR and in such a case, the police is bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. In case of Mohd. Yousuf (supra), the Apex Court held that any JMFC before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, if such an order is passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Officer Incharge of the Police Station is bound to register an FIR even if the Magistrate does not say so in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the case of Babubhai (supra), the Apex Court held that the investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities and the same must be fair, and must not be carried out with an ulterior motive. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious, so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence. The Apex Court further held that fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights, guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious, and it is a minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigation must not be tainted and biased and where non-interference of the Court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the Court must interfere and, in such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation. The Apex Court, after referring to earlier Judgments of the Apex Court, held that though ordinarily, a direction of reinvestigation is forbidden in law, in extraordinary or in special circumstances, a superior Court can direct a fresh investigation. 25. In the case of Nathi Lal and others, (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with cross cases, held that each case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence placed on record in that particular case, without being influenced by the evidence or arguments urged in cross case. 25. In the case of Nathi Lal and others, (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with cross cases, held that each case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence placed on record in that particular case, without being influenced by the evidence or arguments urged in cross case. In the case of K. Chandrasekhar (supra), the Apex Court held that once the investigation was entrusted to CBI and the chargesheet was filed, the consent could not have been withdrawn by the State Government. In the case of Sivanmoorthy and ors., (supra), the Apex Court while referring to its several earlier Judgments, held that further investigation and not fresh investigation can be made. In that case, the Apex Court further held that whether the investigation carried out amounts to further investigation or reinvestigation has to be seen from the nature of investigation conducted. On facts, the Apex Court found that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was in the nature of further investigation. 26. Revering to the factual aspects in the present case, the record discloses that Mrs. Jennifer Monserrate filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was passed, directing the Officer Incharge of Panaji Police Station to register an FIR. Upon being challenged by the State of Goa, the decision of the Magistrate was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 26th March, 2008. In the meantime, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2/2011 had filed two Writ Petitions being Writ Petitions No.146 and 147 of 2008 before the Division Bench of this Court, seeking several reliefs. This Court issued rule and refused to grant any interim relief, upon the statement made by learned Advocate General that the investigation in relation to the incident relating to unlawful assembly, attack on the Police Station and damage to the private and Government property would be entrusted to CBI. Pursuant to the said statement, the State of Goa issued Notification dated 6th May, 2008 by which the investigation into FIR Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and also the complaints filed by different persons mentioned in Annexure I to the Notification came to be handed over to CBI for investigation. Perusal of Annexure I discloses that the complaints filed by the petitioners were also referred to CBI for investigation. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and also the complaints filed by different persons mentioned in Annexure I to the Notification came to be handed over to CBI for investigation. Perusal of Annexure I discloses that the complaints filed by the petitioners were also referred to CBI for investigation. The Apex Court refused to interfere with the said order dated 25th March, 2008 of the Division Bench and dismissed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 14th May, 2008, which has been quoted hereinabove. 27. Thus, from a bare perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and that of the Apex Court, it is evident that the interim relief was refused to petitioners No.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.2/2011 on the ground that the complaints filed by the petitioners would be looked into by CBI while carrying out the investigation. No doubt, the Officer Incharge of Panaji Police Station was bound to register an FIR and thereafter carry out the investigation and as such, there is a serious lapse on the part of the Officer Incharge of Panaji Police Station in not lodging the FIR in terms of the directions given by the learned JMFC, Panaji by order dated 3rd March, 2008, which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji by order dated 26th March, 2008. However, this lapse on the part of the Officer Incharge of Panaji Police Station would not be fatal in view of the fact that the investigation was carried out by CBI pursuant to the Notification dated 6th May, 2008 issued by the State of Goa. Therefore, in our considered opinion, mere fact that the FIR was not registered by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station would not render the investigation carried out by CBI non-est or illegal. In any case, it is the case of CBI that the investigation into FIR Nos. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and also the complaints of different persons mentioned in Annexure I to the Notification dated 6th May, 2008 has been carried out by CBI. Therefore, in our view, non-registration of the FIR would not render the charge-sheets filed in Crime Nos. 57 and 58/2008 illegal 28. 57, 58 and 59 of 2008 and also the complaints of different persons mentioned in Annexure I to the Notification dated 6th May, 2008 has been carried out by CBI. Therefore, in our view, non-registration of the FIR would not render the charge-sheets filed in Crime Nos. 57 and 58/2008 illegal 28. The next question which arises for consideration is whether in the present petitions, the petitioners have made out a case for fresh investigation by quashing the two charge-sheets filed in Crime Nos. 57 and 58 of 2008 and closure report in Crime No.59 of 2008. As stated above, in the case of Babubhai (supra), the Apex Court has held that ordinarily a superior Court would not issue direction of reinvestigation, but such a direction can be issued only in extraordinary or special circumstances. In the present case, the State of Goa referred the investigation of three crimes and all the complaints by different persons in relation to the incidents connected thereto, to CBI and CBI has completed the investigation and filed charge sheets in two crimes, viz. Crime Nos.57/08 and 58/08 and closure report in Crime No.59/08. In our considered view, the investigation carried out by CBI in Crime Nos. 57, 58 and 59/08, and the complaints filed by various persons, including the petitioners, cannot be termed as tainted or one sided, so as to vitiate the charge-sheets and the closure report filed by CBI. In our view, perusal of the materials placed on record by the petitioners, do not establish any extraordinary or special circumstances to warrant a fresh investigation into the three crimes and also the complaints filed by different persons, including those of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that a Special Investigating Team be constituted to investigate afresh the three crimes and the complaints filed by the petitioners. If such a prayer is to be granted, the Police officials from Goa would only constitute such a Special Investigating Team. It is the case of the prosecution that several persons, including the petitioners, indulged in violence and caused damage to the property in Panaji Police Station and injuries to several police officials, whereas it is the case of the petitioners that various offences were committed by the police officials from Goa under Chapters XVI and XVII of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that several persons, including the petitioners, indulged in violence and caused damage to the property in Panaji Police Station and injuries to several police officials, whereas it is the case of the petitioners that various offences were committed by the police officials from Goa under Chapters XVI and XVII of IPC. This being the position, it would not be in the interest of justice to constitute a Special Investigating Team, consisting of Police officials of the State of Goa to investigate into three crimes and the connected complaints of different persons. On this ground also, we find that in the present case, exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not warranted. 29. CBI has filed charge-sheets in Crime Nos.57 and 58 of 2008 and a closure report in Crime No.59/200 and notices have been issued to the complaints/informants by the Magistrate in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court. This being the position, the complainants/informants would be entitled to appear before the learned Magistrate and satisfy the learned Magistrate as to why the closure report should not be accepted. Since the closure report has been filed by CBI, the learned Magistrate is entitled either to (1) accept the report; or (2) issue process against the accused, against whom prima facie case is made out; or (3) order further investigation, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha and ors., vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 . The learned Magistrate can also supervise the conduct of the investigation by CBI. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioners cannot be said to be without any remedy and they can very well point out to the learned Magistrate that further investigation is warranted since the investigation carried out is unsatisfactory. 30. The learned Magistrate can also supervise the conduct of the investigation by CBI. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioners cannot be said to be without any remedy and they can very well point out to the learned Magistrate that further investigation is warranted since the investigation carried out is unsatisfactory. 30. We have deliberately not referred to the materials placed on record while arriving at a finding that the investigation carried out by CBI cannot be said to be tainted or one sided, so that no prejudice is caused to the parties, inasmuch as while considering the closure report in Crime No.59/08, the learned Magistrate is bound to consider whether the investigation carried out by CBI is unsatisfactory & whether any further investigation has to be carried out, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha (supra). Therefore, any observation on the merits of the investigation, at this stage, might influence the decision of the learned Magistrate while considering whether further investigation is warranted. 31. Thus, taking into consideration the factual and legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any case for quashing of the criminal proceedings in terms of the charge-sheets filed by the CBI in Crime Nos. 57 and 58 of 2008, before the learned Magistrate and the closure report in Crime No.59/2008 and for constitution of a Special Investigating Team to investigate afresh the three crimes and the complaints filed by the petitioners. 32. In the result, therefore, we do not find any merit in all the three petitions. Hence, Rule in all the three petitions stands discharged. Needless to mention that the interim orders passed in the petitions stand vacated. Parties to appear before the learned Magistrate at Panaji on 20th June, 2012 at 10.00 a.m.