ORDER : A.Y KOGJE, J. 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H.K Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. This application is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayers: “6(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate, writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R No. I-57/2016 registered with Katargam Police Station and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto qua the petitioner, in the interest of justice; In the alternative (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate, writ, order or direction, directing to transfer the investigation in respect of FIR being C.R No. I-57/2016 registered with Katargam Police Station from the hands of respondent no. 2 to any other independent agency to start the investigation denovo after considering the plea raised by the petitioner in the present petition and, to secure fair and impartial investigation; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate, writ, order or direction, directing that till the transferred investigation is completed denovo, no coercive steps may be taken against the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;” 3. This petition is filed in connection with FIR being I-C.R No. 57 of 2016 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. 4. The petition is filed on the premise that the investigation is being carried out under the influence of the respondent No. 4, who is the original complainant. It is submitted that the investigating officer (respondent No. 2) is playing a pro active role to please the respondent No. 4 and in the enthusiasm to do so, he is not only complying with the directions of this Court issued vide CAV order dated 29.06.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16335 of 2017 but has also flagrantly flouted the directions. It is submitted that it was the bounden duty of the respondent No. 2 to strictly adhere to the directions of this Court in order dated 29.06.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16335 of 2017. Application No. 16335 of 2017 but has also flagrantly flouted the directions. It is submitted that it was the bounden duty of the respondent No. 2 to strictly adhere to the directions of this Court in order dated 29.06.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16335 of 2017. The order categorically directed the respondent No. 2 to comply with the provisions of the judgment in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 , and also a categoric directions that the investigating officer shall not rush for the arrest of the applicant without first collecting the evidence from the Forensic Science Laboratory to opine on the forgery of the documents. In stead, the respondent No. 2 has conducted him self in a manner, which would amount to harassment to the applicant as well as his family members. It is alleged that the investigating officer, in absence of the petitioner while his wife and other members were present in the house in the late hours came to the residence and pressurized the wife of the petitioner and force ably carried out the search of the house till 2 AM. It is submitted that such conduct as constrained the petitioner to file the present petition. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. H.K Patel submits that the action on the part of the investigating officer was in due course of investigation and the investigating officer has never misbehaved nor caused any harassment to the petitioner or any of his family members. It is submitted that, in any case, the concerned investigating officer has now been transferred, and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner has been put to rest. Now, the investigation is in the hands of the incumbent Police Inspector of the said police station. 6. Learned senior counsel, Mr. N.D Nanavati for learned advocate, Mr. Virat G. Popat with learned advocate, Mr. Masoom K. Shah appearing for the respondent No. 4(original complainant) submits that the prayer in the petition is for quashing of the FIR. The present petition is a successive petition for quashing whereby a detailed reasoned order dated 29.06.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13631 of 2016 was passed. Virat G. Popat with learned advocate, Mr. Masoom K. Shah appearing for the respondent No. 4(original complainant) submits that the prayer in the petition is for quashing of the FIR. The present petition is a successive petition for quashing whereby a detailed reasoned order dated 29.06.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13631 of 2016 was passed. This Court has turned down his first petition of quashing and now, by merely creating an excuse of unfair and lop-sided investigation, the petitioner is attempting to distract from his quashing petition, which can not be permissible. 7. At this stage, learned senior counsel, Mr. R.R Marshall for learned advocate, Mr. Manan A. Shah appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if care is taken that the investigation would proceed fairly without being unduly influenced by the complainant. As the incumbent Police Inspector has now changed and investigation is in hands of another investigating officer, his request that the stand of the petitioner in connection with the offence should also be taken into consideration by the investigating officer be considered by this Court. The request on behalf of the petitioner appears to be reasonable to this Court and hence, the petition is disposed of with following directions:— (i) The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the concerned Zone will supervise the investigation of I-C.R No. 57 of 2016 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat City. (ii) The Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also take into consideration the stand taken by the petitioner in his statement recorded in connection with the aforementioned FIR. The investigation and the subsequent steps may be taken in-strict conformity of the provisions of the Cr.P.C 8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.