Naheed Ara Moonis,J.:- This petition has been filed by the petitioner Suresh Chandra Dixit with the following prayers:- ( 1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 26.9.2003( Annexure no.9 to this writ petition) lodged by respondent no.2 and its crime 404 of 2003, under section 302,201 I.P.C. P.S. Kamalganj, District-Farrukhabad( .U.P.). ( 2) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi or some independent Investigating Agency for further investigation/reinvestigation for a Fair Trial to act in terms of Section 173( 8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to submit the application/complaint prior to dated 23.9.2003 given by the respondent no.2, the application dated 25.9.2003 given by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.4, and the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.4 and the application dated 25.9.2003 given by the respondent no.2 sent through a registered post to the respondent no.3. ( 4) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of sessions Trial No. 331 of 2007, State of U.P. Versus Suresh Chandra Dixit under section 302/201/120-B I.P.C. Police Station Kamalganj District Farrukhabad now pending before the learned Trial Court. ( 5) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. ( 6) award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner against the respondents. 2. The fact in brief of this case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Mour Shree lodged an F.I.R. on 26.9.2003 at 8.00 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred during the period 14.9.2003 to 13.9.2003 at P.S. Kamalganj in case crime no. 404 of 2003 under sections 302,201 I.P.C. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown miscreants. 2. The fact in brief of this case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Mour Shree lodged an F.I.R. on 26.9.2003 at 8.00 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred during the period 14.9.2003 to 13.9.2003 at P.S. Kamalganj in case crime no. 404 of 2003 under sections 302,201 I.P.C. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown miscreants. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the husband of the deceased was serving as Class IV employee in R.P. Degree College, Kamalganj, thereafter her father in law became the Secretary of the College, then the husband of the first informant resigned, after resignation the financial condition of the first informant became very bad, her husband was intending to take loan from the Government for which was visiting Fatehgarh, in the meantime he came in contact of Smt. Chetana Rathor, Chairman of Gramudoyg Sewa Sansthan and Suresh Chandra Tripathi( petitioner), the husband of the first informant namely the deceased Suresh Singh Verma was assured by Smt. Chetna Rathore for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 5 corore for the purpose of opening Degree College and a hospital, and she was assured to appoint him as Secretary of the above mentioned institution. He was asked that half of the aforesaid amount would be spent in the construction of the above mentioned institution, and remaining half shall be provided to Smt. Chetna Rathore for which the deceased executed an agreement to sale of a land having the area of about 7 bigha, he also collected Rs. 1,50,000/- the same was handed over to Smt. Chetna Rathore, for this purpose the deceased was usually going to Fatehgarh in the company of the petitioner, on 14.9.2003 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased had gone in the company of the petitioner to Fatehgarh, thereafter he did not come back, on 23.9.2003, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a brick-klin of one Vijay Yadav, the dead body was of an unknown person, its post mortem examination was conducted, on this information, the first informant along with other members family came to mortuary at Fatehgarh and identified the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was handed over to the first informant for the purpose of cremation, she alleged in the F.I.R. that her husband was murdered by some unknown persons, thereafter, his dead body was kept in a dig of the brick-klin. 3. The dead body was handed over to the first informant for the purpose of cremation, she alleged in the F.I.R. that her husband was murdered by some unknown persons, thereafter, his dead body was kept in a dig of the brick-klin. 3. After investigation the charge sheet dated 10.12.2003 has been submitted by the I.O. against the petitioner in the court of the learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad on which the learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad has taken cognizance on 17.7.2004, the learned magistrate concerned has committed the case to the court of session where the charge has been framed in S.T. No. 331 of 2007 and the session trial is pending. The petitioner was arrested, he was sent to jail, thereafter he has been released on bail on 5.12.2003 by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18638 of 2003. The present petition has been filed before this court , the same was reported on 26.2.2008 on which the first order was passed on 19.2.2008 for listing on 27.2.2008, after the committal of the case to the court of sessions where the proceedings are pending in S.T. No. 331 of 2007 under sections 302,201,120-B I.P.C. State of U.P. Versus Suresh Chandra Dixit. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the F.I.R., to hand over the investigation to the C.B.I. or other independent agency, for the purpose of further investigation under section 173( 8) Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings of S.T. No. 331 of 2007 and to submit the application/complaint prior to the date 23.9.2003 given by respondent no.2 The application dated 25.9.2003 given by respondent no.2 to respondent no.4 and the application dated 25.9.2003 was given by respondent no.2 through the registered post to respondent no.3. 4. Heard Sri Anand Bihari Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A., the written arguments have also been filed by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. 4. Heard Sri Anand Bihari Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A., the written arguments have also been filed by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. The prayer sought by the counsel for the petitioner is based on the following grounds: a)That the impugned F.I.R. dated 26.9.2003 may not be treated as F.I.R. in the eyes of law, as it is not as per requirement of the section 154 Cr.P.C. b)That there is a settled principles of interpretation that the word in statute should not be brushed aside as the court always presume that legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. c)That the I.O. has absolutely transgressed, its statutory power of investigation as enshrined in sections 156, and 157 Cr.P.C. of 1973 d)That there can be no second F.I.R. in respect of the same cognizable offence. e)That it was a matter of law whether an information is the first information or not, it was open to the officer in charge of the police station to treat the information as such according to his discretion. f)That the first information is the information which is given to the police first, in the point of time, and not that which police may select and record as First Information. g)That in the present case scheme of the provision of sections 154,155,156,157,162,170,173 Cr.P.C. has not been properly followed. h)That it was the duty of the officer in charge of the police station concerned to register the first information report on the basis of the first information received. i) That the first information shall always be earliest first information report successive information may not be registered as the first information report, the story set up in the F.I.R. is cooked up., the investigation done on such F.I.R. is illegal, thereafter the order or cognizance and the order of committal passed by the learned magistrate concerned are also illegal, the proceedings pending before the learned Sessions court are also illegal and the pendency of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner is simply an abuse of the process of court and the law both. j)That a frivolous enquiry report was conducted by Sri Pratap Singh then C.O. of Amritpur district Farrukhabad, the same was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Facts Finding Cell, Investigation Division, National Human Right Commission, Sardar Patel Marg, Sansad Bhawan, New Delhi, by concealing the real facts regarding the information given prior to 23.9.2003 by respondent no.2 sent to respondent no.4, on 23.9.2003, the information given by respondent no.2 to respondent no.4 by Sri Ansar Pradhan on 25.9.2003, the information was given to respondent no.4 to respondent no.2 which shows that the information given to the police station first has not been reduced in writing as F.I.R. It is mentioned in the enquiry report conducted by the C.O. has been submitted by the concealing the true facts of the arrest of the petitioner. k)That in the present case no fair investigation has been conducted without doing fair investigation charge sheet has been submitted. The petitioner was a public servant, he was posted as Kurk Amin, no sanction was sought for his prosecution, from the authority concerned in Vineeet Narain's case( J.T. 1997( 10) S.C 2471 the Apex court categorically stated that unless prior investigation is made by proper prosecution under the general law applicable to such investigation, the rule of law will lose its significance. l)That the I.O. has not left any stone unturned to help the real culprit valuable evidence though available, was not collected apparently for ulterior purpose. The investigation was having lapse as well as gross infirmity. it was a tented, biased and unfair investigation, therefore, the investigation of this case is required by an independent investigation agency like C.B.I. in such situation, the F.I.R. of this case as well as the prosecution of the petitioner arising out of the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed. 6. The investigation was having lapse as well as gross infirmity. it was a tented, biased and unfair investigation, therefore, the investigation of this case is required by an independent investigation agency like C.B.I. in such situation, the F.I.R. of this case as well as the prosecution of the petitioner arising out of the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed. 6. In reply the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. ( A)That this petition has been filed by giving notice to the Government Advocate on 16.2.2008, it was taken up by another bench of this court on 19.2.2008 but at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it was ordered to be listed on 27.2.2008, thereafter, for the purpose of keeping this petition pending, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue this petition due to oblique motive, in this writ petition no interim order to stay the proceedings of trial court has been passed but on the ground of pendency of this writ petition, the proceedings of trial court are not being lingered on due to which the proceedings against the petitioner in S.T. No. 331 of 2007 are still pending. ( B)That, this petition is not maintainable, it has been filed with the main prayer that the impugned F.I.R. dated 26.9.2003 in case crime no. 404 of 2003 under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. P.S. Kamalganj district Farrukhabad may be quashed and the second prayer is to hand over the investigation of this case to an independent agency like C.B.I. In the present case F.I.R. has been lodged on 26.9.2003 at 8.00 a.m., the same was investigated, after investigation the charge sheet dated 10.12.2003 has been submitted in the court of learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad on which the cognizance has been taken on 17.7.2004 in criminal case no.1168 of 2004. The charge sheet and the cognizance order dated 17.7.2004 have been challenged by the petitioner before the High Court by way of filing the criminal misc. application no. The charge sheet and the cognizance order dated 17.7.2004 have been challenged by the petitioner before the High Court by way of filing the criminal misc. application no. 13428 of 2006, under section 482 Cr.P.C., the same has already been dismissed on 3.11.2006, the F.I.R. and other material collected by the I.O. on which the charge sheet has been submitted, has already been considered by the Hon'ble court in exercising its power conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. and it has been dismissed by observing that "having heard the submissions and considering the facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered view that it is not a stage to make meticulous examination of evidence on record and finding, and therefore, no ground for quashing the aforementioned charge sheet is made out." ( C)That, after taking the cognizance by the learned magistrate concerned on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. the case has been committed to the court of session where the proceedings against the petitioner in S.T. No. 331 of 2007 are pending, the trial court has framed the charge against the petitioner. The charge sheet which include FIR has also been challenged by the petitioner, which has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. the prayer to quash the same has been refused; therefore, the prayer to quash the FIR again may not be considered. ( D)That, so far as the prayer with regard to the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency like the C.B.I. is concerned there is no good ground to transfer the 'investigation' which has already been competed, re-investigation is not permitted under the law. ( E)That, the present writ petition is devoid of merits, it has been filed with oblique motive it is simply a misuse of the process of law as well as of court, therefore, this petition may be dismissed with cost. 7. ( E)That, the present writ petition is devoid of merits, it has been filed with oblique motive it is simply a misuse of the process of law as well as of court, therefore, this petition may be dismissed with cost. 7. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the submissions made by the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in this case F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.2 on 26.9.2003 at 8.00 a.m. alleging therein that her husband, the deceased Surendra has been killed, in the body of the F.I.R. the name of the petitioner accused, has been mentioned, after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, on which the learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad has taken cognizance on 17.7.2004, the charge sheet dated 10.12.2003 and the order dated 17.7.2004 taking cognizance have been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13428 of 2006 before this court, the same has been dismissed on 3.11.2006. 8. After taking cognizance, the learned magistrate concerned has committed the case to the court of sessions, where it is pending as S.T. No. 331 of 2007 against the petitioner. After dismissal of the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. on 3.11.2006 the present writ petition has been filed which was reported on 16.2.2008, first time this matter was taken up by another bench of this court on 19.2.2008 but it was not argued by the petitioner's counsel at his request the date 27.2.2008 was fixed, thereafter also the matter was not argued. On 23.7.2009, this matter was taken up by a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, and Hon'ble B.K.Narayana,J.J. who released this case by passing the following order. "List before the bench of which both of us are not the member, after obtaining nomination from the Hon'ble Chief Justice" Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief justice nominated the Division Bench presided over by one of us ( Justice Ravindra Singh) vide order dated 10.8.2009. This matter was registered in cause list on many occasions and it was taken also but the counsel for the petitioner did not argue this petition, he always made request for the adjournment. He did not want to argue this case so that this petition may be kept pending. This matter was registered in cause list on many occasions and it was taken also but the counsel for the petitioner did not argue this petition, he always made request for the adjournment. He did not want to argue this case so that this petition may be kept pending. The counsel for the petitioner has made all efforts for keeping this petition pending when passed the order mentioning therein that no further adjournment shall be granted, the counsel for the petitioner moved an application bearing No. 227458 of 2008 before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for transferring this case from this Bench to another Bench but Hon'ble the Chief Justice did not transfer the case and that application was sent to this Court, then counsel for the petitioner requested the court for dismissing that application as not pressed then the application for transferring this case to another bench was dismissed. Any how the counsel for the petitioner agreed to argue this petition but he did not put his submissions he preferred to file the written arguments. 9. This petition for quashing the FIR dated 26.9.2003and transferring the investigation of case crime No. 404 of 2003 under sections 302, 201 I.P.C. police station Kamalganj, district Farrukhabad to CBI or some independent investigating agency for further investigation has been filed. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of Session Trial No. 331 of 2007 pending before Sessions Court Farrukhabad has also been made. This petition is not maintainable because after completing the investigation the charge sheet has been submitted on which leaned C.J.M.Farrukhabad has taken cognizance on 17.7.2004, both, the charge sheet and order dated 17.7.2004 have been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13428 of 2006, the same has been dismissed after considering the merits of this case by another bench of this Court on 3.11.2006. The case of the petitioner has been committed to the court of sessions where charge has been framed and case is pending for the trial. The FIR itself is disclosing the commission of the cognizable offence. 10. The case of the petitioner has been committed to the court of sessions where charge has been framed and case is pending for the trial. The FIR itself is disclosing the commission of the cognizable offence. 10. So far as the transfer of the investigation is concerned, the investigation has already been completed, it is not pending, the prayer sought that investigation may be transferred to C.B.I.or other investigating agency for further investigation under section 173 ( 8) Cr.P.C., is having no substance because no further investigation is pending, the petitioner is the accused in the above mentioned case, at his instance the order of further investigation under section 173( 8) Cr.P.C. may not be passed. 11. So far as the prayer to quash the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 331 of 2007 under sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C.,pending in the Sessions Court Farrukhabad is concerned, the trial court has framed the charge after committal of the case, the material available before the trial court is, in the form of charge sheet which has already been tested by another bench of this Court in exercise of powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C., it may not be re-appreciated. There is no good ground to quash the proceedings of S.T.No. 331 of 2007. The prayer with regard to the application dated 25.9.2003, no direction may be issued to any respondents in this regard. Therefore the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 26.9.2003, the prayer to transfer investigation of case crime no. 404 of 2003, under sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad and the prayer to quash the proceeding of S.T. No. 331 of 2007, is refused. 12. We are of the view that this petition is misconceived it has been filed with oblique motive but we are restraining ourselves to impose the cost on the petitioner and his counsel. 13. 12. We are of the view that this petition is misconceived it has been filed with oblique motive but we are restraining ourselves to impose the cost on the petitioner and his counsel. 13. The record reveals that in this case on Surendra Singh Verma has been murdered, its FIR has been lodged on 26.9.2003, its S.T.No. 331 of 2007 is pending before the trial court, a period of more than 9 years from the date of incident, has been passed even then this case has not been decided, therefore, we direct that the proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 331 of 2007 shall be expedited without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the side, the same shall be commenced , if possible, on day- to- day basis. The District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad is directed to ensure the expeditious disposal of the above mentioned case. 14. With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad forthwith for the compliance.