ORDER : Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, who has appeared in person and Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) for the respondents. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate direction for handing over the investigation in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 148/2016 to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation. 3. The First Information Report was instituted by the petitioner in which it has been stated that an occurrence had taken place on 03.05.2016 at the office situated at Sector-2, Dhurwa, Near Vidhan Sabha where the petitioner had been brutally assaulted by four staffs of Regional Labour Commissioner Ranchi namely Sri Ram Kumar Singh (UDC), Sri Suresh Gope (Stenographer), Sri Kishore Thakur (Peon) and Sri Baidyanath Prasad (Driver). All the four persons were completely drunk and it is alleged that they had obstructed in discharging his official duty and threatened and attempted to kill the petitioner by strangulation. Based on the aforesaid allegations Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 148/2016 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 504/341 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was added. 4. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India and he was posted at the office of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhurwa, Sector-2, Ranchi. The petitioner had joined on 04.06.2014. It has been stated that the four staffs who were instrumental in assaulting the petitioner were transferred to different places from the Ranchi office on 27.04.2016 but they got their transfer stayed from the head office on 03.05.2016. On 03.05.2016 a local leader of a political party lodged a counter complaint against the petitioner on behalf of the said four staffs which were registered as Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 149/2016. The petitioner has further stated that on 03.05.2016 the Regional Labour Commissioner suddenly appeared in the Police Station and started influencing the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to protect his staffs against whom the petitioner had lodged an FIR. The Regional Labour Commissioner thereafter went to Mahindra Showroom and intimidated the witnesses not to speak against the staffs. The petitioner has further stated that on 03.05.2016 the Regional Labour Commissioner suddenly appeared in the Police Station and started influencing the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to protect his staffs against whom the petitioner had lodged an FIR. The Regional Labour Commissioner thereafter went to Mahindra Showroom and intimidated the witnesses not to speak against the staffs. The petitioner claims that on 04.05.2016 he had given a representation to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Hatia making a complaint against the Officer-in-Charge of Jagarnathpur P.S. for not inserting appropriate Sections of the Indian Penal Code in the First Information Report. The petitioner had also represented the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi against the act of the Officer-in-Charge Jagarnathpur P.S. for manipulating the First Information Report and protecting the accused persons. The voice recording of four persons were also given. It has been stated further that on 11.05.2016 the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hatia had given a supervision note to the Officer-in-Charge of Jagarnathpur P.S. to investigate by taking evidence in the form of CCTV footage, Video and Audio recording and to add Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code in the First Information Report. The petitioner had again represented the higher Police officials about the lackadaisical attitude of the Police and their delaying tactics in obtaining the injury report. Insinuation has been cast upon the Officer-in-Charge of Jagarnathpur P.S. and the Investigating Officer of deliberately diluting the case of the prosecution. The petitioner further claims that he was also threatened when he was in the Civil Court for which intimation was given to the higher Police officials. On 23.08.2016 the learned court below had passed an order to send the Audio CD produced by the petitioner for examination and direction was also issued to take voice sample of the accused persons but the Investigating Officer kept sitting over the matter. It has also been stated that several complaints were made by the petitioner about the shoddy investigation being carried out by the Police. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reference has been made to Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 149/2016 instituted against the petitioner. It has also been stated that several complaints were made by the petitioner about the shoddy investigation being carried out by the Police. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reference has been made to Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 149/2016 instituted against the petitioner. It has been stated that since both cases arose out of a solitary incident a joint supervision was made and during the course of supervision in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 148/2016 on the basis of the materials available on record the case was found to be true against the accused persons. It has further been stated that recommendation was made by the Investigating Officer to initiate a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against both the parties. After completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused persons. 6. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit the petitioner has referred to the injury report and has stressed on the fact that injuries on neck support the allegation of an attempt made to strangulate the petitioner. It has further been prayed that perfunctory investigation has since being carried out by the Police and as such investigation by an independent agency is the need of the hour. The petitioner has also reiterated the factual assertions made in the writ petition. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner in which it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been transferred from Ranchi to Chennai due to political interference and the same was the reason for the poor investigation being carried out by the Police. 7. Respondents by filing a supplementary affidavit has stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had deputed the Executive Magistrate for collecting the voice sample of the accused for getting the CD tested at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. The respondents have further in their second supplementary affidavit stated that the accused persons are not ready to give their voice sample. 8. While responding to such affidavits the petitioner has stated that although the Court had ordered for taking the voice sample of the accused in August, 2016 but a casual approach was made by the Investigating Officer in sitting over the matter for about 20 months. 8. While responding to such affidavits the petitioner has stated that although the Court had ordered for taking the voice sample of the accused in August, 2016 but a casual approach was made by the Investigating Officer in sitting over the matter for about 20 months. The petitioner who is appearing in person has stated that the First Information Report has been manipulated since Sections 307/353 of the Indian Penal Code was overwritten by inserting other bailable Sections. He has further stated that his restatement was taken after five days but the same was not reproduced in the case diary. The petitioner submits that no independent witness has been examined and the injury report was also not properly taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. While referring to the Audio CD the petitioner submits that in spite of a specific direction of the learned court below the voice sample of the accused persons were never taken. It has been further argued that there has been a political interference in the matter since the local MP had agitated to the Labour Minister against the petitioner and consequently he was transferred to Chennai. He has also submitted that the CCTV footage was not obtained and the investigation carried out would indicate that the Police was influenced by the higher-ups not to properly investigate the case instituted by the petitioner. He has concluded by stating that since proper investigation was never carried out by the Police it is a fit case in which the investigation should be handed over to the CBI. 9. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that bald allegations have been levelled against the Police. He has further submitted that it was a minor incident which is being tried to be blown out of proportion by the petitioner. 10. It appears from the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents brought on record that a solitary incident led to institution of a case and counter case. The petitioner instituted Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 148/2016 whereas he was at the receiving end in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 149/2016. 10. It appears from the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents brought on record that a solitary incident led to institution of a case and counter case. The petitioner instituted Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 148/2016 whereas he was at the receiving end in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 149/2016. Basically the petitioner was assaulted and which appears to be his primary grievance is that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was never added to the First Information Report and the investigation also did not proceed in such direction. The petitioner has claimed that there was an attempt to strangulate him and therefore Section 307 IPC would have fulfilled the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused persons. The petitioner has been vociferous in his arguments that right from the inception of the case the officials have taken a manipulative stand in diluting the allegations at the behest of the higher-ups. 11. It is to be seen from the circumstances brought on record as to whether there has been inappropriate consideration to the allegations levelled by the petitioner. The crux of the institution of the cases seem to be the transfer of four staffs by the petitioner which led to a fracas involving both the sides in two separate criminal cases. No doubt it is true that there has been some latches committed by the Investigating Officer by not taking the voice sample of the accused immediately after the order was passed by the learned court below but failure on the part of the Investigating Officer on that score alone cannot lead to acceptance of the plea of the petitioner. The allegation of attempt at strangulating the petitioner seems to be far fetched as mere injury on neck and that too being simple in nature would not lead to such conclusion. There is nothing on record even remotely to suggest that there was an attempt to commit the murder of the petitioner thereby making the offence more grave. The contention of the petitioner regarding such attempt can also be by way of vengeance on account of the assault to make the offence more graver in nature thereby inviting the maximum punishment to the accused persons. The Investigating Officer has a bounden duty by law to ensure fair and proper investigation in each and every case. The contention of the petitioner regarding such attempt can also be by way of vengeance on account of the assault to make the offence more graver in nature thereby inviting the maximum punishment to the accused persons. The Investigating Officer has a bounden duty by law to ensure fair and proper investigation in each and every case. The Court must ensure that if the same is brought to its knowledge to remove the latches which may have come to the fore on account of perfunctory investigation by the Police and can in appropriate cases hand over the investigation to an independent investigating agency. 12. In the case of “Pooja Pal versus Union of India and Others” reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 repeatedly the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that a court of law cannot reduce itself to be a resigned and a helpless spectator in the face of a faulty investigation. 13. In the case of “Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others versus Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another” reported in (2002) 5 SCC 521 , it has been held that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing an inquiry by the CBI can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It has further been held that it is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by the CBI. 14. The petitioner no doubt has in his pleadings referred to various factors and has also stressed upon the political influence to dilute the case instituted by the petitioner. However on going through the case diary and the entire gamut of pleadings by both the parties there does not appear to be any justification in absence of their being appropriate materials to suggest faulty investigation in order to handover the investigation to the CBI. However on going through the case diary and the entire gamut of pleadings by both the parties there does not appear to be any justification in absence of their being appropriate materials to suggest faulty investigation in order to handover the investigation to the CBI. The petitioner has pointed out some lacuna but on a consideration of the allegation as well as the injury report of the petitioner by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. None of the witnesses in the case diary have also stated about the attempts made by the accused persons in strangulating the petitioner. From an over all perspective of the case at hand it appears that as per the allegations the same was considered by the Investigating Officer and barring the delay in getting the voice sample of the accused the other part of the investigation has been appropriately conducted and on finding the case to be true charge-sheet has been submitted against the four accused persons. 15. Thus it is concluded that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for handing over of the investigation to the CBI and accordingly having found no merit in this application the same is hereby dismissed.