JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation of BLG PS Case No. 43/2015 has been conducted by the police, the petitioner is filing this criminal petition U/s 482 CrPC for directing the respondent authorities to conduct further investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she lodged a complaint against the respondent No. 1 with the learned SDJM, Bishalgarh, West Tripura, which was registered as CR (Misc.) Case No. 3 of 2015 by stating, inter alia, that she is the owner of the Jewellery Shop under the name and style of “Dhakeswari Jewellers” located at Madhya Bazar, Bishalgarh, which was co-owned by her late husband, the late Narayan Ch. Dhar. After the death of her husband, she became unfit to look after the business and entrusted her two sons, namely, the respondent No. 1 and Sri Biplab Dhar to look after the said shop jointly. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 started to create pressure on her for separation of the business between the brothers. However, before any final decision could be taken, the respondent No. 1 on 25-4-2014 arrived at the shop along with some miscreants during her absence and the absence of the said Biplab Dhar and stolen away 65 bhoris of Gold, 20 bhoris of Silver and a cash amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with all equipments used in the shop and important documents from the shop. According to the petitioner, the commission of the theft the respondent No. 1 was witnessed by some neighbouring businessmen such as Sri Biswajit Saha, Sri Swapan Karmakar, Sri Subhash Paul and others, who informed her younger son, the said Biplab Dhar about the theft over mobile phone. However, before the said Biplab Dhar and the petitioner could reach the shop, the respondent No. 1 managed to sneak out with his cohorts. The petitioner and the said Biplab Dhar rushed to the Bishalgarh P.S. for lodging a complaint, but the police refused to do so. 3. However, after the intervention of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh in connection with CR (Misc.) Case No. 3/15, the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh PS registered BLG P.S. Case No. 43 of 2015 U/s 380/506 IPC against the respondent No. 1. 3. However, after the intervention of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh in connection with CR (Misc.) Case No. 3/15, the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh PS registered BLG P.S. Case No. 43 of 2015 U/s 380/506 IPC against the respondent No. 1. The case was entrusted to one Sanjit Bhowmik, the Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation. According to the petitioner, the case was not properly investigated by the I.O.; he did not even record the statements of the witnesses named in the written complaint and that the IO of the case without properly verifying the documents manufactured by the respondent No.1 in his name submitted the final report dated 31-5-2015 claiming that the complaint was based on mistake of facts. On her objection, the learned SDJM, Bishalgarh by the order dated 14-8-2015 directed further investigation of the case and the same was endorsed to one Prasanta Kr. Dey, S.I. of Police for further investigation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second IO also did not properly investigate the case and did not even examine two witnesses, namely, Biswajit Saha and Sushanta Banik. The further investigation also ended in submission of final report by the IO on the ground of mistake of fact. The petitioner put her objection against the final report before the learned SDJM, Bishalgarh and prayed for further investigation. The learned Magistrate, however, found from record that the respondent No. 1 is indeed the actual owner of the shop under the name and style of “Dhakeshwari Jewellers” and that the witnesses, namely, Biswajit Saha and Sushanta Saha also stated that he is the owner of the shop. The learned SDJM by the impugned order dated 7-3-2017 rejected her application, which prompted her to file this criminal petition. It was on the basis of the above findings that the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for further investigation. 4. It is the contention of Mr. The learned SDJM by the impugned order dated 7-3-2017 rejected her application, which prompted her to file this criminal petition. It was on the basis of the above findings that the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for further investigation. 4. It is the contention of Mr. R. Datta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the endorsement of the case for investigation to another Sub-Inspector of Police of the same police station when the ill-fated previous investigation was conducted by the officer of the same police station, without anything more, vitiated the investigation carried out by the second IO; this is contrary to Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 3 SCC 126 wherein the Apex Court deprecated the practice of endorsing further investigation by the same police authorities. The learned counsel forcefully submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, and the State-respondents be directed to appoint a police officer, who is higher in rank than the previous investigating officer to carry out further investigation to ensure free and impartial investigation of the case. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raju Datta, the learned counsel for the private respondent, maintains that the first and second final reports reveal that the grievance of the petitioner is about a dispute of civil nature, and no criminal liability can be attributed to the respondent No. 1 even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that the allegations made by the petitioner are true. He, therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, and the criminal petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed forthwith. 5. The second IO in his final report stated that on the materials collected by him, it was established that the respondent No. 1 is a businessman having his jewellery shop under the name and style of “Dhakeshwari Jewellery” situated at Bishalgarh and that his mother (the petitioner herein) claimed that she is the owner and proprietor of Sandhya Jewellery situated at Bishalgarh, but as per registration certificate issued by the competent authority as well as the Income Tax Return, he is doing business in his shop. Without going any further, the above report of the second IO itself has established that the complaint lodged by the petitioner is more of a dispute of civil nature than of a criminal nature. The dispute is about family business which surfaced after the death of the head of the family. A civil suit in connection with such dispute is apparently pending in a civil court. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate did not commit any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for further investigation. Criminal machinery cannot be permitted to be used for settling family business dispute or to wreak vengeance upon a family member when no prima facie case of criminal offence is made out. 6. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this criminal petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs.