Order : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- (i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the investigation to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation after registering the FIR in the instant matter. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR registered at Crime No. 429/2014 against the petitioner's son and his friend. (iii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the protection to the petitioner and her family and may kindly direct the State to grant compensation to the victims. (iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts as projected by the petitioner, are that she is an old lady and house wife residing at Raipur. On 19.10.2014, at around 9-10 p.m. petitioner's elder son- Ashok Dwivedi and his friend- Agyey Datt Mishra had gone to Ramkrishna Hospital to see one of their friends who was admitted in hospital. Her younger son- Abhishek received a call from his sister-in-law- Suresha Dwivedi (who is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police) informing him that his elder brother's mobile is not connected and requested him to go and check whereabouts near Telibandha Police Station. Petitioner's two sons namely Arvind and Abhishek went to Police Station- Telibandha where they saw that their elder brother- Ashok Dwivedi and his friend- Agyey Datt Mishra were beaten brutally by the Police inside the Police Station. It is submitted that on seeing this, both the sons were shocked and objected for such an inhuman behaviour of the police officers with their elder brother, on which the police officers/ private respondents became furious and started beating two sons of the petitioner ruthlessly as well. The said inhuman conduct of ruthless beating continued till 4 a.m. in the morning and when sons of the petitioner became unconscious they were taken to Mekahara Hospital where her elder son- Ashok Dwivedi was admitted and was being treated as he is unable to even talk properly on account of the serious injuries sustained by him. 3. The said inhuman conduct of ruthless beating continued till 4 a.m. in the morning and when sons of the petitioner became unconscious they were taken to Mekahara Hospital where her elder son- Ashok Dwivedi was admitted and was being treated as he is unable to even talk properly on account of the serious injuries sustained by him. 3. On 22.10.2014 when petitioner's elder son- Ashok Dwivedi regained consciousness then the petitioner asked as to what had happened on the date of incident and how such an incident had occurred on which, he told the petitioner that when they were returning from Ramkrishna Hospital and in front of Telibandha Police Station, one motorcycle rider, who was driving vehicle very recklessly came in front of their car, elder son of the petitioner and his friend told the person driving the motorcycle not to drive the vehicle in such a way as it may cause serious accident. However, the motorcycle rider with three more friends suddenly started quarreling with son of the petitioner and his friend. At that point of time, Agyey Datt Mishra made call to Police Station- Telibandha from where two constables came and took all the motorcycle riders to the police station. Respondent No. 6- Gautam Netam- Assistant Sub-Inspector, who seems to have drunk heavily came and suddenly started abusing Ashok Dwivedi to which objected by saying that “we have come to lodge a report and you are not supposed to talk to us such filthy language”. Upon hearing this, the Assistant Sub-Inspector became furious and slapped Ashok Dwivedi, who made a call to his wife namely Suresha Dwivedi, who is also working in the same department as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Janjgir-Champa and informed her about the incident. Upon which, Goutam Netam again slapped and told him in filthy language that “call whomsoever you want to” and thereafter started assaulting Ashok Dwivedi. During beating, his mobile phone fell down thereafter, Goutam Netam and other private respondents took him inside the police station and thereafter started beating him severely. Ashok Dwivedi and Agyey Datt Mishra were also looted by Goutam Netam, which includes one gold chain, one gold ring and wrist watch and Rs. 8000/- cash. All the private respondents who were present in the police station also started beating Ashok Dwivedi. 4. Ashok Dwivedi and Agyey Datt Mishra were also looted by Goutam Netam, which includes one gold chain, one gold ring and wrist watch and Rs. 8000/- cash. All the private respondents who were present in the police station also started beating Ashok Dwivedi. 4. The police officers in order to create defend this, have lodged criminal complaint bearing Crime No. 429/2014 against Ashok Dwivedi and Agyey Datt Mishra, which has subsequently been registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 18216/2014 for committing offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B/34 of I.P.C. and the same was fixed for argument and for framing of charges. The instant incident was published in various newspapers and on the above factual matrix, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of F.I.R and enquiry by C.B.I. 5. Learned counsel for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3 has filed return on 09.12.2014 denying allegations made by the petitioner contending that on 19.10.2014 at about 11 p.m., when Manohar Kumar, who is running a hotel, was going to his house situated at Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, after taking the petrol from Minocha Petrol Pump by his motorcycle, in front of Hotel Barista located at Mahasamund Barrier, petitioner's sons and his friend namely Ashok Dwivedi, Yakshadatta @ Sonu Mishra, Arvind Dwivedi & Abhishek Dwivedi obstructed his motor-cycle and started abusing with filthy language and threatened to kill him. They assaulted Manohar with hands, fists and club. They also assaulted one boy standing and seeing this incident. Looking to that, a lot of nearby people gathered and assaulted petitioner's son and his friend. Complainant- Manohar Kumar immediately went to Police Station- Telibandha for lodging the report, the aforesaid four persons after some moment also reached the police station and started assaulting him. One Purandeep standing at the premises of Police Station and upon intervening by police personal, the aforesaid four persons started abusing to the police personnel and assaulted them also. On account of that assault, the complainant received injuries. The incident was seen by Purandeep and one lady, who came to lodge report at Police Station- Telibandha. Upon receiving the report, FIR bearing Crime No. 429/2014 was registered against petitioner's son and his friends for committing offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B/34 of I.P.C. and the trial is pending before the learned trial Court. The incident was seen by Purandeep and one lady, who came to lodge report at Police Station- Telibandha. Upon receiving the report, FIR bearing Crime No. 429/2014 was registered against petitioner's son and his friends for committing offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B/34 of I.P.C. and the trial is pending before the learned trial Court. Complainant- Manohar and Purandeep were sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Raipur where the medical examination was done. 6. Learned counsel for the State has further contended that on receiving the written report made by the petitioner, enquiry was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur, who has submitted his report on 29.10.2014, wherein no such incident has been found and no police atrocities or torture has been committed by the police authorities. A copy of the report has also been filed by the State (Annexure R/7). On the basis of the enquiry report, police personnel’s namely Ratan Singh Netam (Assistant Sub-inspector), Shankarlal Dhruv (Head Constable No. 947), Vijeshwar Ram (Head Constable 751), Rajesh Soni (Constable No. 2058), Vinay Singh (Constable No. 1817) & Hemant Gilhare (Constable No. 2111) have been placed under suspension vide order dated 24.10.2014 (Annexure R/8) by Superintendent of Police, Raipur. In view of the facts aforestated, learned State counsel would submit that no case of quashing of FIR is made out and present writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 7 to 11 have also filed their return on 05.11.2015 supporting the stand taken by State/respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 have filed application for adopting the return filed by the State. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder on 03.02.2015 and trying to challenge the credibility of the averments made in the return filed by the respondents. He would submit that in view of such concocted story, it is required that the matter should be inquired by Special Investigation Team (SIT) as no fair investigation has been carried out by the State Police Officers. He would further submit that it is a case of police atrocities, therefore, investigation done by the police authority, cannot be treated as fair investigation, therefore, it is prayed that the matter be investigated by an independent agency like CBI. 9. He would further submit that it is a case of police atrocities, therefore, investigation done by the police authority, cannot be treated as fair investigation, therefore, it is prayed that the matter be investigated by an independent agency like CBI. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed rejoinder on 23.11.2015 to the reply filed by respondents No. 7 to 11. He would submit that in the enquiry report submitted by Additional Superintendent of Police on 29.10.2014 it has been mentioned that: ^^v'kksd f}osnh ,oa vU; ij gkWVy cfj'rk ds ikl Hkh vkijkf/kd geyk gks pqdk FkkA ftlesa mldks dqN pksVsa Hkh vk;h FkhA Fkkus esa v'kksd f}osnh] ;KnRr feJk] vjfoUn f}osnh ,oa vfHk"ksd f}osnh dks ykBh] M.Mk ,oa iV~Vs ls Hkh ekjihV ds fu'kku dh f'kdk;r gSA v'kksd f}osnh ,oa vU; rhuksa ij vk;h pksV ds fu'kku] ykBh] M.Mk] jkWM ,oa iV~Vs ds gks ldrs gSA ftlesa laHkor% rhu iqfyl vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh gks ldrs gSA cy Á;ksx vko';drk ls vf/kd gksuk ifjyf{kr gks jgk gSA Fkkus esa gq;h ?kVuk ds le; ,lŒvkbZŒ Bkdqj] Á/kku vkj{kd 'kadj /kzqo] Á/kku vkj{kd c`ts'oj jke] Á/kku vkj{kd oekZ] Á/kku vkj{kd Ádk'k iqjksfgr] vkj{kd gsear fxygjs] vkj{kd QSty [kku ,oa vU; ekStwn FksA ÁkFkhZ i{k ds dFku ,oa nksuks vkosnd i=ksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gSA rFkk ÁkFkhZ i{k ,oa iqfyl LVkQ ds dFku ,drjQk Árhr gksrk gSA dFkuksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa ?kVuk Øe dk fo'ys"k.k esa Fkkus esa gq;h ?kVuk ds fy;s v'kksd f}osnh ,oa mlds lg;ksfx;ksa }kjk vHkærk vkijkf/kd geyk] ekjihV ,Œ,lŒvkbZŒ usrke ,oa vU; ij gqbZ ?kVuk ,oa iqfyl cy ds vkØksf'kr gksus ds dkj.k ?kVuk gksuk Árhr gksrk gSA ÁkFkhZ i{k }kjk VhŒvkbZŒ jkds'k c?ksy ,oa vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼'kgj½ uhjt pUækdj ds fo:) ekjihV dh f'kdk;r nksuksa vf/kdkfj;ksa dh mifLFkfr ds dkj.k fn;k tkuk ik;k tkrk gSA buds Åij yxk;s x, vkjksi vÁekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSA** 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Additional Superintendent of Police has categorically stated in his report that excessive force has been used, therefore, it is established that it is fit case wherein, enquiry should be conducted by the CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT Delhi) & others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677 & Rubabbudin Sheikh Vs. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT Delhi) & others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677 & Rubabbudin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200 , in which it has been held that if the investigation is by an agency, which is allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility of the investigation will be doubted that will be contrary to the public interest as well as the interest of justice and matter should be examined by other independent agency. 11. Learned counsel for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner has also filed petition challenging registration of FIR No. 429/2014 wherein final report has already been submitted, but the petitioner's son and his friend are not participating in the proceeding and they are adopting delay tactics. The ground raised by the petitioner is a matter of evidence and the same is required to be enquired by the trial Court, therefore, the present petition in the garb of investigation by CBI is only to stall the proceeding, therefore, quashing the proceeding of FIR No. 429/2014 is not maintainable. If the petitioner is not agreed with any action of the police, he should have also filed complaint before Judicial Magistrate. They have remedy of filing complaint, as such the present petition with prayer to conduct investigation by CBI and to quash the charge-sheet is not maintainable. Even otherwise, no such ground with regard to investigation by CBI is made out as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments. 12. Learned State counsel would submit that no case for conducting enquiry by CBI is made out. Charge-sheet has already been filed but due to non-participation of the petitioner's son and his friend, no charge has been framed, and there is no material against the police authorities, but there are sufficient material against the petitioner's son and his friend. Hence, it is prayed that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel as well as submissions made by Senior counsel- Mr. Praveen Das. Hence, it is prayed that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel as well as submissions made by Senior counsel- Mr. Praveen Das. He would submit that no case is made out to be enquired by CBI and the trial has been stalled because of non-participation of the petitioner's son and his friend, therefore, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 14. This Court vide called for the status report of the case, wherein it has been found that the case was fixed for framing of charge on 07.04.2021, but due to non-participation of petitioner's son, charge has not been framed against them. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on records with utmost satisfaction. 16. The point requires to be determined by this Court is (1) Whether in given facts and circumstances of the case this Court can direct for enquiry by CBI or not ? (ii) in view of the facts and circumstances of the case whether FIR No. 429/2014, is liable to be quashed by this Court or not ? (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since police officers are involved in the case and the Additional Superintendent of Police in its report has also recorded finding that excessive force has been used by the police officers. He would submit that it is a fit case where the investigation should have been transferred to the CBI. He would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & others, (2006) 2 SCC 677 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “6. Undisputedly, in the present case no case was registered pursuant to the complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the Contempt Petition CCP No. 307/1997 filed by the appellant is also pending disposal before the High Court. It is, however, stated by the respondent that the nondisposal of the contempt petition is due to the non-prosecution by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the Contempt Petition CCP No. 307/1997 filed by the appellant is also pending disposal before the High Court. It is, however, stated by the respondent that the nondisposal of the contempt petition is due to the non-prosecution by the appellant. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the contempt petition has been pending since 1997 and as such petition should be disposed of with a sense of urgency otherwise the petition itself will loose all its force and the purpose for which the contempt is initiated would be defeated. 7. In this case, admittedly, the complaint was filed against the Police Officer. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a situation the interest of justice would be better served if this Court directs the CBI to register the case and investigate the mater.” 17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat & others, (2010) 2 SCC 200 held as under:- “53. It is an admitted position in the present case that the accusations are directed against the local police personnel in which High Police officials of the State of Gujarat have been made the accused. Therefore, it would be proper for the writ petitioner or even the public to come forward to say that if the investigation carried out by the police personnel of the State of Gujarat is done, the writ petitioner and their family members would be highly prejudiced and the investigation would also not come to an end with proper finding and if investigation is allowed to be carried out by the local police authorities, we feel that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel that investigation was not proper and in that circumstances it would be fit and proper that the writ petitioner and the relatives of the deceased should be assured that an independent agency should look into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility, however, faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, particularly when the gross allegations have been made against the high police officials of the State of Gujarat and for which some high police officials have already been taken into custody. 54. 54. It is also well known that when police officials of the State were involved in the crime and in fact they are investigating the case, it would be proper and interest of justice would be better served if the investigation is directed to be carried out by the CBI Authorities, in that case CBI authorities would be an appropriate authority to investigate the case.” 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the complaint made by the petitioner's son, no action has been taken by the police as the police are also involved in the matter, therefore, it is necessary that direction for investigation by the CBI may be issued. The submission made by the petitioner is not acceptable in view of the fact that the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing the complaint against alleged atrocities committed by the police authorities i.e. respondents No. 5 to 11 in police station under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C or section 200 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate in view of Judgment Passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S. Janaki & another, (2020) 16 SCC 728 . The Supreme Court after considering the same judgment has held at para 7 & 9 which are as under:- “7. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, in which it is observed: (SCC p. 278, paras 2-4) “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156 (3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court.” 9. In these circumstances, we would allow the present appeal and set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR and investigation into the matter by the police. At the same time, our order would not be an impediment in the way of the first respondent filing documents and papers with the police pursuant to the complaint dated 18-09-2008 and the police on being satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to register an FIR. It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary. Equally, it will be open to the appellants and others to take steps to protect their interest.” 19. It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary. Equally, it will be open to the appellants and others to take steps to protect their interest.” 19. It is well settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution can direct the CBI to investigate into any specific case or to conduct an inquiry against a person. It can do so only when there is sufficient material before the Court to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such an inquiry. Certainly, such an inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes an allegation. If after considering the materials on record the Court concludes that such materials disclose a prima facie case calling for investigation by the CBI, the Court can make the necessary order. It has also been well settled that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to order an inquiry and investigation to be taken over from the State Police and entrusting it to the CBI, can be exercised when it was to investigate corruption in public administration, misconduct by the bureaucracy, fabrication of official records, and misappropriation of public funds by an independent agency that would command public confidence. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments that the very plenitude of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution requires great caution in its exercise. Such extraordinary power is required to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. It has also settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when investigation by the State Police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having a fair, honest and complete investigation and particularly when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies, in such circumstances, investigation can be vested by the Court with the CBI. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India & others, (2020) 14 SCC 12 has held as under:- “47. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India & others, (2020) 14 SCC 12 has held as under:- “47. As we have observed earlier, the petitioner requested for and consented to the transfer of the investigation of the FIR from the Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. He did so because an earlier FIR lodged by him at that police station was under investigation. The petitioner now seeks to preempt an investigation by the Mumbai police. The basis on which the petitioner seeks to achieve this is untenable. An accused person does not have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be carried out or in regard to the investigating agency. The line of interrogation either of the petitioner or of the CFO cannot be controlled or dictated by the persons under investigation/interrogation. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, R. Banumathi, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that: “66. …..there is a well-defined and demarcated function in the field of investigation and its subsequent adjudication. It is not the function of the court to monitor the investigation process so long as the investigation does not violate any provision of law. It must be left to the discretion of the investigating agency to decide the course of investigation. If the court is to interfere in each and every stage of the investigation and the interrogation of the accused, it would affect the normal course of investigation. It must be left to the investigating agency to proceed in its own manner in interrogation of the accused, nature of questions put to him and the manner of interrogation of the accused.” (Emphasis supplied) This Court held that so long as the investigation does not violate any provision of law, the investigation agency is vested with the discretion in directing the course of investigation, which includes determining the nature of the questions and the manner of interrogation. In adopting this view, this Court relied upon its earlier decisions in State of Bihar v P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222] and Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [ (1998) 1 SCC 52 ] in which it was held that the investigating agency is entitled to decide “the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions” during the course of the investigation. 48. In CBI v. Niyamavedi, Sujata V Manohar [ (1995) 3 SCC 601 ], J., speaking for a three Judge Bench of this Court held that the High Court should have: “4…refrained from making any comments on the manner in which investigation was being conducted by the CBI, looking to the fact that the investigation was far from complete.” This Court observed that: “4. …...Any observations which may amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences.” This Court adopted the position that courts must refrain from passing comments on an ongoing investigation to extend to the investigating agencies the requisite liberty and protection in conducting a fair, transparent and just investigation. 49. The contention of the petitioner that the length of the investigation or the nature of the questions addressed to him and the CFO during the interrogation must weigh in transferring the investigation cannot be accepted. The investigating agency is entitled to determine the nature of the questions and the period of questioning. The Petitioner was summoned for investigation on one day. Furthermore, the allegation of the Petitioner that there is a conflict of interest arising out of the criticism by him of the alleged failure of the State government to adequately probe the incident at Palghar is not valid. The investigation of the Palghar incident is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai Police. 50. The petitioner has then sought to rely upon the allegations which he has leveled against the CP, Mumbai. The petitioner was interrogated on 27 April 2020. The investigation of the Palghar incident is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai Police. 50. The petitioner has then sought to rely upon the allegations which he has leveled against the CP, Mumbai. The petitioner was interrogated on 27 April 2020. The allegations which he leveled against the CP, Mumbai were in the course of a television programme on 28 April 2020 (“Poochta hai Bharat”) relayed on R Bharat at 1900 hrs. As we have noted earlier, this Court has, in CPDR, held that no transfer of investigation can be ordered “merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police.” Accordingly, we do not find that leveling such allegations would by and itself constitute a sufficient ground for the transfer of the investigation.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the accused would have no say in selecting the method of inquiry or the investigating agency. In Romila Thapar & others Vs. Union of India & others, (2018) 10 SCC 753 the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking a review of the earlier precedents reiterated the principle that the accused does not have a say in the matter of appointment of the investigating agency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “24. Turning to the first point, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is no more res integra. In Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat [ (2011) 5 SCC 79 ], in paragraph 64, this Court restated that it is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency. Further, the accused persons cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the offence committed by them. Paragraph 64 of this decision reads thus: “64. …...It is trite law that accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigation agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.” (emphasis supplied) 25. Again in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Vs. Union of India [ (2016) 1 SCC 1 ], the Court restated that the accused had no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Paragraph 68 of this judgment reads thus: “68. The accused has no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Again in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Vs. Union of India [ (2016) 1 SCC 1 ], the Court restated that the accused had no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Paragraph 68 of this judgment reads thus: “68. The accused has no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Similar is the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha [1993 Supp. (4) SCC 260], Mayawati v. Union of India [ (2012) 8 SCC 106 ], Dinubhai Boghabha Solanki v. State of Gujarat [ (2014) 4 SCC 626 ], CBI v. Rajesh Ganghi [ (1996) 11 SCC 253 ], Competition Commission of India v. SAIL [(2010) 10 SCC 344] and Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary [ (1991) 3 SCC 756 ] (emphasis supplied). 26. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in E. Sivakumar Vs. Union of India [ (2018) 7 SCC 365 ], while dealing with the appeal preferred by the “accused” challenging the order of the High Court directing investigation by CBI, in paragraph 10 observed: “10. As regards the second ground urged by the petitioner, we find that even this aspect has been duly considered in the impugned judgment. In paragraph 129 of the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein it has been held that in a writ petition seeking impartial investigation, the accused was not entitled to opportunity of hearing as a matter of course. Reliance has also been placed in Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra, in particular, paragraph 11 of the reported decision wherein the Court observed that it is well settled that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. By entrusting the investigation to CBI which, as aforesaid, was imperative in the peculiar facts of the present case, the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition or for that matter, was not heard, in our opinion, will be of no avail. That per se cannot be the basis to label the impugned judgment as a nullity.” 27. This Court in Divine Retreat Centre Vs. That per se cannot be the basis to label the impugned judgment as a nullity.” 27. This Court in Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala [ (2008) 3 SCC 542 ] has enunciated that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint an investigating officer of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis. The Court made it amply clear that neither the accused nor the complainant or informant are entitled to choose their own Investigating Agency to investigate the crime in which they are interested. The Court then went on to clarify that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of the aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide. 30. In view of the above, it is clear that the consistent view of this Court is that the accused cannot ask for changing the Investigating Agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for Court monitored investigation. The first two modified reliefs claimed in the writ petition, if they were to be made by the accused themselves, the same would end up in being rejected. In the present case, the original writ petition was filed by the persons claiming to be the next friends of the concerned accused (A16 to A20). Amongst them, Sudha Bhardwaj (A19), Varvara Rao (A16), Arun Ferreira (A18) and Vernon Gonsalves (A17) have filed signed statements praying that the reliefs claimed in the subject writ petition be treated as their writ petition. That application deserves to be allowed as the accused themselves have chosen to approach this Court and also in the backdrop of the preliminary objection raised by the State that the writ petitioners were completely strangers to the offence under investigation and the writ petition at their instance was not maintainable. We would, therefore, assume that the writ petition is now pursued by the accused themselves and once they have become petitioners themselves, the question of next friend pursuing the remedy to espouse their cause cannot be countenanced. We would, therefore, assume that the writ petition is now pursued by the accused themselves and once they have become petitioners themselves, the question of next friend pursuing the remedy to espouse their cause cannot be countenanced. The next friend can continue to espouse the cause of the affected accused as long as the concerned accused is not in a position or incapacitated to take recourse to legal remedy and not otherwise. ” 21. Form the above factual matrix and law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, present petition challenging transfer of the investigation to CBI, is not permissible as no circumstances or facts have been brought to the notice of this Court which makes ground for transfer of the investigation to CBI, as such, prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI is liable to be rejected by this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for transfer of present matter for investigation by CBI is rejected. 22. Now, the point requires to be determined by this Court is whether FIR No. 429/2014 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, is liable to be quashed by this Court or not as no case is made out against the petitioner's son and his friend, but the petitioner’s son and his friend have not challenged the said registration of FIR. Learned counsel for respondents raised objection that if the petitioner's son and his friend intend to challenge the FIR, then they should have file petition before this Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is victim as defined in Section 2 () of Cr.P.C., therefore, this writ petition is maintainable. The definition of victim as per Section 2 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted as under:- “Victim means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the express 'victim' includes his or her guardian or legal heir” 23. Petitioner's son and his friend are major, therefore, it is not established that the petitioner's son are facing some disability to prosecute the present case, therefore, the petitioner being mother cannot be considered as legal heirs . 24. Petitioner's son and his friend are major, therefore, it is not established that the petitioner's son are facing some disability to prosecute the present case, therefore, the petitioner being mother cannot be considered as legal heirs . 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident took place on 19.10.2014 which has caused severe injuries to petitioner's son, therefore, they are unable to prosecute the present petition, as such, the present petition has been filed on 27.10.2014, therefore, the petitioner has rightly filed the present petition. This Court found that the petition was filed on 27.10.2014, but thereafter petitioner has not made any attempt to join her son and his friend as petitioners, therefore, it can be safely held that the petition on the strength of mother, who is not accused in the crime, writ petition quashing the FIR, is not maintainable. Even otherwise, if this Court examines the case on merit, the averments made by the petitioner that her son and his friend have been beaten brutally from 11 pm to 4 am continuously, is the matter to be enquired at the time of recording of evidence, which this Court while hearing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine as held by Honble the Supreme Court in case of Priti Saraf & another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & another6, which reads as under:- “31. Be it noted that in the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing of charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it must use proper circumspection with great care and caution to interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 32. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/ charge-sheet. 32. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/ charge-sheet. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings.” 25. On the above discussion, considering the material placed on record as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various cases, no case is made out for transferring the matter to CBI and even the petitioner's son, who has not challenged registration of FIR, is not maintainable on the 6 AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1531 strength of petition filed by the petitioner, who is not an accused in the crime. Even otherwise, as per the averments, the matter requires detailed thread-bearing examination of evidence that can be done by the trial Court, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 26. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file complaint under Section 200 or 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction over the place of offence for raising her grievances mentioned in the complaint annexed with the writ petition. 27. Learned trial Court is directed to make endeavor to conclude the trial within a period of two years from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 28. In view of the above, the present writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.