Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. The present petition was initially filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for transferring the investigation in case FIR No. 131 dated 11.6.2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Further prayer was for staying the proceedings before the trial Court initiated on the basis of the final report submitted by the Police authorities under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 18.10.2011, this Court had directed the Registry to treat the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the matter thereafter has been listed as Crl. Misc. No. M-32191 of 2011. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner retired from Delhi Police as Assistant Sub Inspector. On 10.6.2011, son of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep Singh @ Sonia went to attend the marriage party of one Ramesh Singh son of Hawa Singh in the village. The petitioner, at about 9.00 O'clock late in the evening, was informed that his son had been fired upon and upon making enquiries was told that family members of Shamsher Singh instead of admitting Kuldeep Singh in the local Hospital had taken him to Jaipur Golden Hospital at Delhi i.e. at a distance of 60-70 kms. It is pleaded that the petitioner immediately rushed to the Hospital in Delhi where he was informed that his son Kuldeep @ Sonia had died on account of the bullet injuries suffered by him in the neck. Against this backdrop, the petitioner approached the police authorities on 11.6.2011 stating that it was under a conspiracy that somebody has killed his son by firing bullet shots. Based on such complaint, FIR No. 131 dated 11.6.2011, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act was registered. It would be useful to re-produce the relevant portion of the FIR which reads as under: Statement of Sube Singh son of late Sh. Hardev Singh caste Chamar resident of village Salimsar Majra and aged 62 years. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I have three children. Out of these two are sons and one is daughter. The youngest son was Kuldeep Singh @ Sonia. Hardev Singh caste Chamar resident of village Salimsar Majra and aged 62 years. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I have three children. Out of these two are sons and one is daughter. The youngest son was Kuldeep Singh @ Sonia. Yesterday on 10.6.11 the marriage of Ramesh son of Hawa Singh was fixed as we have visiting terms with their family and my son Sonia had gone to attend their marriage party at their home at about 5 p.m. Then at about 9 P.M. I was informed at my house that my son Sonia received fire shot on his body and the family members of Hawa Singh took him to Sonipat for his treatment. I, on receiving information, had gone to the house of Hawa Singh and from there I and my family members reached Sonipat. On enquiring from the government hospital, it came to light that nobody had come there, but later on came to notice that the boy was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi. Then I along with my family reached Golden Hospital at Delhi and on enquiry the doctor told that Sonia has died due to fire shot and the other boy of our village named Shamsher @ Sheru son of Suraj Bhan is also admitted there as he has also received fire shot on his hand. I enquired from him also and he did not tell me anything. I returned to my village from there and I after reaching village also enquired from the village about this incident, but all in vain. I have strong suspicion that somebody has fired a shot to my son Kuldeep @ Sonia by hatching a conspiracy, due to which he has died. I have got recorded my statement. Legal action may kindly be taken. Sd/- Sube Singh son of Hardev Singh dated 11.6.11. 3. It is further pleaded that after registration of the FIR, the local police recorded the statement of Shamsher Singh wherein he confessed that he had killed the son of the petitioner. It has further been alleged that the family members of Shamsher Singh (accused) approached the petitioner for compromising the matter and upon the petitioner having refused to do so, it was disclosed that in fact it were respondents 6 and 7 who had murdered the son of the petitioner. It has further been alleged that the family members of Shamsher Singh (accused) approached the petitioner for compromising the matter and upon the petitioner having refused to do so, it was disclosed that in fact it were respondents 6 and 7 who had murdered the son of the petitioner. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter he has been approaching the police authorities at various levels repeatedly to bring forth the involvement of respondents 6 and 7 in the crime. The Investigating Agency submitted the report (challan) on 7.7.2011 against Shamsher Singh only. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer made in the present petition would submit that the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would clearly demonstrate that the State Investigating Agency has conducted a biased, shoddy, incomplete and partisan investigation of FIR No. 131 dated 11.6.2011. It is contended that the police authorities have acted illegally just to shield and protect respondents 6 and 7 who were the actual culprits. Accordingly, prayer has been made for ordering re-investigation and that too at the hands of Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. In the reply submitted on behalf of the respondent-authorities, it is stated that it is only upon completion of fair and impartial investigation that a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been submitted before the Magistrate concerned on 18.7.2011. A preliminary objection has also been taken that it was open for the petitioner to have raised a grievance as regards any infirmity in the investigation before the Magistrate before whom the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been submitted. The respondents questioned the very maintainability of the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 7. Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In suitable cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or finds that such investigation has not been conducted satisfactorily, Magistrate can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly and can also monitor the same. In suitable cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or finds that such investigation has not been conducted satisfactorily, Magistrate can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly and can also monitor the same. Still further, the Magistrate can even order the re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Bihar v. A.C. Saldanna", AIR 1980 SC 326 and "Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others", 2008 (1) RCR (Cri) 392. 8. On a pointed enquiry having been put upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, it stands conceded that the petitioner at no stage has ever filed any application before the learned Magistrate complaining about any laxity and infirmity in the investigation that was conducted by the police authorities. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel has apprised the Court that the petitioner/complainant did not even support the case of the prosecution at the trial and, accordingly, accused Shamsher Singh already stands acquitted vide judgment dated 1.10.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Even such factual aspect has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In view of such factual position noticed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the present petition in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _