JUDGMENT Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioner has challenged part of investigation conducted by 2nd Investigating Officer in FIR No.76/2022 for offences under Sections 498 A, 307, 354 and 34 IPC registered with Women's Police Station Kupwara. Challenge has also been thrown to the status report dated 02.10.2022 filed by the Investigating Officer before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kralpora, wherein it has been reported by the Investigating Officer that offences have not been established against some of the accused. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the investigation of the case was conducted by Sh. Abdul Sattar but later on it was entrusted to a probationary Police Officer of the rank of Dy.SP. It is alleged that the said Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation in fair and transparent manner and when the petitioner came to know about it, she approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kralpora and filed application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C requesting the learned Magistrate to monitor the investigation of the case. It has been further submitted that on the said application the learned Magistrate called status report of the investigation from the Investigating Officer, a perusal whereof revealed that some of the accused persons have been let off and it has been reported that no evidence was found against them. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the investigation conducted by the 2nd Investigating Officer is absolutely biased and un-professional in nature, inasmuch as, the said Investigating Officer neither has experience nor knowledge relating to investigation. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant desires that her statement under Section164 Cr.P.C be re-recorded because when she made her statement before the learned Magistrate she was not able to depose the entire events. 4. So far as the question of monitoring the investigation is concerned, the petitioner has already approached learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kralpora by way of an application. By filing the instant petition for the same relief, the petitioner is only trying to multiply the proceedings which amounts to abuse of process of Court. 4. So far as the question of monitoring the investigation is concerned, the petitioner has already approached learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kralpora by way of an application. By filing the instant petition for the same relief, the petitioner is only trying to multiply the proceedings which amounts to abuse of process of Court. The apprehension of the petitioner that the 2nd Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation of the case fairly has been taken care of inasmuch as, the Superintendent of Police has now entrusted the investigation to Inspector Dalbeer Kour of Women's Police Station Kupwara. Whether the investigation conducted by the 2nd Investigating Officer Dy.SP Khadim Hussain was unfair and biased, can be looked into by the new Investigating Officer and at this stage when the investigation of the case has not been completed and the learned Magistrate is seized of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to venture into this exercise. 5. The challenge thrown to the status report filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate is not tenable, because what the Investigating Officer has stated in the status report is the status of the investigation. Whether the investigation has been conducted in fair and proper manner is a question that would be decided by the Magistrate at the appropriate stage. The status report, therefore, cannot be quashed in these proceedings. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant desires to get her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C re-recorded, as she could not narrate the entire events in her earlier statement. This aspect of the matter is completely within the domain of the Investigating Officer. If the new Investigating Officer, after going through the material on record and after considering the attending circumstances, is of the view that the statement of the complainant needs to be recorded afresh, it will be open to the Investigating Officer to approach the concerned Magistrate for re-recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, but this Court would not pass any such direction in this regard upon the Investigating Officer, as the decision lies entirely in his discretion. 7. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.