ORDER : D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for seeking the following reliefs: "A. ..a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus appointing an independent Special Investigation Team comprising of Senior Officers headed by a competent person or authority of impeccable credentials to conduct an investigation to take over the investigation and prosecution of the FIR's mentioned in Para 3 of the present petition as well as FIR No 313/2013, registered at PS, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, Haryana and to take all necessary consequential steps/ actions pertaining thereto; B. Alternatively direct fresh investigation by the DIG level Officer of the CBI into the aspects contained and highlighted by the Petitioner in para 3 of the present writ petition as well as FIR No 313/2013, registered at PS, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, Haryana, dated 28.08.2013; C. .. a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to Respondents No 4 to 8, complete the investigation expeditiously and to submit final reports/chargesheet in the FIR's mentioned in Para 3 of the present petition, where the same has not already been done; D. .. a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to the State of Haryana to register FIR's in relation to the Complaints mentioned in Para 88 of the present petition;" 2. The First Information Reports in respect of which the petitioners, by prayers (a) and (b) seek the appointment of an SIT or alternatively a fresh investigation by the CBI, are set out in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition. Paragraph 3 is extracted below: "i. FIR 180/13 dated 27.04.2013 as PS Habibganj, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh under Section 420 IPC ii. FIR No 279/13 under Section 420, IPC dated 27.04.2013 at PS Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. iii. FIR No 327/13 dated 11.4.2013 under Section 419/420/467/468/471/406/120B IPC, lodged at PS Cantonment, Gorakhpur, UP. iv. FIR No 1093/13 dated 30.12.2013 under Section 406/506 IPC in PS Cantonment, Gorakhpur, UP. v. FIR No 06/14 under Section 354/504/506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act dated 5.1.2014 at PS Sadar, Gorakhpur, UP. vi. FIR No 426/14 under Sections 419/420/468/471/406/120-B IPC dated 28.05.2014 at PS Cantonment, Gorakhpur vii. FIR No 172/13 under Section 506 IPC at PS Gama Devi, Mumbai viii. v. FIR No 06/14 under Section 354/504/506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act dated 5.1.2014 at PS Sadar, Gorakhpur, UP. vi. FIR No 426/14 under Sections 419/420/468/471/406/120-B IPC dated 28.05.2014 at PS Cantonment, Gorakhpur vii. FIR No 172/13 under Section 506 IPC at PS Gama Devi, Mumbai viii. FIR 376/2013 under Section 397/34 IPC at PS Jahangirabad, Bhopal (MP) dated 06.05.2013 ix. FIR No 94/2014 under Section 420/406/465 IPC dated 12.04.2014 at PS Digboi, Tinsukia, Assam x. Criminal Complaint Case being RCT/01678/2014 in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, u/s 500 of IPC." 3. The petitioners are closely related to the second respondent. Hence, an effort was made by this Court to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement. By an order dated 4 May 2017 parties had agreed to a mediation by Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel. The mediation has failed. Interim directions were issued for the deposit of certain amounts by the petitioners. 4. On behalf of the first and second respondents, it has been submitted that the petitioners had filed Writ Petition (Crl.)No 159 of 2013 seeking similar reliefs. By an order dated 27 September 2013, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. The petitioners also filed a set of ten Transfer Petitions, Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 192-201 of 2015. The transfer petitions were dismissed on 28 March 2016. All the FIRs, a reference to which is contained in the portion extracted above were filed in 2013-14. The jurisdiction under Article 32 has been invoked in 2016. 5. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained. The remedy of the petitioners for seeking quashing of the FIRs, or such other reliefs as they may be advised to seek must necessarily be addressed before the jurisdictional High Court. No case for entertaining a writ petition under Article 32 has been made out. 6. The writ petition shall stand dismissed.