JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioners, by way of present petition, have approached this Court invoking provisions of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.”), with prayer to entrust investigation of FIR No. 106 dated 3.6.2018, registered in Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu under Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 IPC, with respect to incident occurred on 3.6.2018 near Shamshi District Kullu, to independent Agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as respondent No.1 has failed to make any progress in investigation in the matter. 2. Petitioner No.1 Sarvhitkari Adhyatmik Kendra is a Registered Society which is being represented through Secretary Surinder Singh. Petitioner No.2 Khem Singh is injured/victim in incident dated 3.6.2018, who is claiming himself to be real successor of Shri Param Sant Thakur Singh Maharaj and an authorized person to conduct Satsang to disseminate his teachings. Petitioner No.3 Ganesh Dass is claiming himself as devotee. 3. It has been claimed in petition that Baba Param Sant Thakur Singh was Chief of Vishav Manav Ruhani Kendra, Nawan Nagar, District Panchkula and he had nominated petitioner No.2 Khem Singh as his successor during his life time but prior to his death; respondent No.2 Baljit Singh came close to Baba Param Sant Thakur Singh Ji Maharaj during his last days of life when he was not in his full senses, and respondent No.2 Baljit Singh exploited the situation for his selfish ends and got himself declared as successor of Baba Param Sant Thakur Singh Ji Maharaj, and after death of Maharaj, respondent No.2 deviated the principles of mission and started performing Karamkand (rituals) and practicing occult science in the Dera in breach of trust of devotees, which compelled the devotees to form the Sarvhitkari Adhyatmik Kendra, a registered Society, with sole motive to preach and complete the mission of late Baba Sant Thakur Singh Ji Maharaj and conduct the Satsang accordingly. 4. It is further case of petitioners that aforesaid activity by Sarvhitkari Society was and is not liked by respondent No.2 and his supporters who are having vested interest and, therefore, they became inimical towards petitioner No.2 and his followers, and fearing from exposure of their acts and misdeeds, respondent No.2 and his supporters/followers as well as their paid goons started planned attacks in organized manner on devotees of petitioner No.2 to disrupt, obstruct and dissuade the devotees from conducting Satsang throughout India. All these matters were complained by members of Society and FIR were registered in State of Maharashtra, Gujarat and other States where the followers of respondent No.2 organized the attacks on members of petitioners’ society. 5. It has been alleged in petition that on 3.6.2018 at about 7.30 AM petitioner No.2 was going to house of a devotee for conducting Satsang near Shamshi in District Kullu. After alighting from bus, he was walking on the road towards house of devotee. At that time, 5-6 young persons (goons) came out of a black coloured car having temporary No. HP33T-8699 having iron rods, swords and wooden sticks with them and attacked petitioner No.2 causing him serious injuries in the right leg, left hand including fracture of arm and they inflicted about 35 injuries on his body. 6. Matter was reported to police and FIR No. 106 of 2018 dated 3.6.2018, referred supra, was registered in Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu H.P. 7. It is the case of petitioners that respondent No.1 has failed to conduct a fair and effective inquiry and investigation in the matter and to collect the evidence to bring respondent No.2, his followers and goons to books and punish them and therefore, present petition has been filed. 8. Response of respondent No.2 is that petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, and that petitioner No.2 was issued an Identity Card for voluntary Sewa by an organization named Vishwa Manav Kendra, Nawan Nagar, District Panchkula Haryana which had ceased to operate and exist since January 2005 and, therefore, claim of petitioners based on authority issued by the said organization also ceased to exist in January 2005 or, at the most, at the time of death of Maharaj Thakur Singh Ji on 6.3.2005 and after cessation of Vishwa Manav Kendra, all its programmes/activities came to an end and therefore, proclamations of petitioner No.2 are to be construed baseless and misleading. 9. 9. It has been further contended on behalf of respondent No.2 that he is associated with another Society/Organization named as Vishav Manav Ruhani Kendra, Nawan Nagar, District Panchkula duly registered on 20.1.2005 which is an entirely different and distinct identity than Vishwa Manav Kendra and petitioner No.2 had applied to Society for issuance/renewal of his Sewa identity Card by submitting a written application which was not approved for the reason that petitioner No.2 had failed to follow the Rules, Regulations, basic tenets of the Society which were essentially required for voluntary Sewa. Further that there was a complaint against petitioner No.2 regarding which petitioner No.2 had tendered apology in writing to respondent No.2. Further that there had never been any conflict with respect to Gaddi of Thakur Sant Ji Maharaj as in his communication, sent for tendering the apology to respondent No.2, petitioner No.2 had addressed respondent No.2 as Param Pujya Maharaj Ji, who has been declared as successor by Thakur Singh Mahajra Ji on 21.9.2004 and introduced as such in congregation held on 2.1.2005 whereas respondent No.2 was not present in these occasions and thus there is no question of influencing the Maharaj by respondent No.2 as all DVDs recorded during that time clearly show that Maharaj was in full senses with sound disposing mind at the time of delivering Satsangs/addressing congregations during that time. It has been contended that allegations against respondent No.2 are mischievous and scandalous levelled for the purpose of usurping the succession in the Society by use of all unlawful means. 10. As per response of respondent No.1, through Superintendent of Police, Kullu, District Kullu, District Police has carried out the investigation meticulously and sincerely and during investigation, police has collected all cogent evidence, to trace out the culprits, including CCTV footages, Customer Application Forms of suspects and their Call Details Record etc. and has also interrogated 40 persons and inquired about 300 persons belonging to both sides/parties but despite that no clue of culprits could be traced as the number plate affixed on Car used for commission of offence was found to be fake and in CCTV footages no such car was found crossing at possible different points, and faces of suspects were also not identifiable in CCTV footages. 11. 11. During pendency of petition, by filing an affidavit by Superintendent of Police, it was informed that finding no evidence or clue of culprits, and despite taking all efforts to trace the involvement of suspects in assault, finding no incriminating material against respondent No.1 and to identify culprits, an untrace report was prepared and was presented before the Magistrate for adjudication. 12. Respondent No.3 Central Bureau of Investigation in its reply has submitted that CBI is a specialized agency having limited manpower and resources and is already overburdened with investigation of cases entrusted to it by various High Courts including this High Court as well as the Supreme Court of India and present matter does not fall within ambit of guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, reported in (2010)3 SCC 571 for referring to CBI, as instant case is local in nature and does not involve any Inter-State and International ramifications whereas State police is well equipped with trained Investigating Officers to inquire/investigate such kind of cases and has requisite recourses at its command to conduct enquiry/investigation of the case properly under the supervision of Senior Police Officers of repute having experience with these type of cases. Further that investigation in present case requires no expertise of CBI and therefore, prayer for dismissing the petition has been made. 13. At the same time, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent No.3 CBI that in case Court deems it appropriate to entrust the investigation to respondent No.3/CBI, then respondent No.3 is ready for that and shall investigate the matter in compliance thereof. 14. It has been contended on behalf of respondent No.2 that State Police has already enquired the matter by making comprehensive attempts to collect the evidence but nothing material has been found against respondent No.2 as alleged and an untrace report has also been filed on conclusion of investigation and therefore, in present case, for the provisions of law and sanctity of investigation of District Police, which has not been doubted at any point of time, no case for further investigation much less re-investigation has been made out and, therefore, prayer for rejecting the petition has been made. 15. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also submitted that petitioners have a right to file objections against untrace report submitted by Investigating Officer before the Magistrate and, therefore, on this count also, present petition deserves to be dismissed. Whereas, it has been contended on behalf of petitioners that Magistrate has power only to direct further investigation by the same Investigating Agency but not by the independent Agency like respondent No.3 or even any higher authorities of police and, therefore, particularly keeping in view the inability of District Police to trace the culprits in their investigation, present petition is maintainable in the facts, circumstances and nature of prayer made in petition. 16. Petitioners have claimed that incident was witnessed by Smt. Jalpa resident of Gadori, Mohan Lal resident of village Banjar and Bharat Kumar resident of village Jarad District Kullu. Photocopies of affidavits of these persons have been placed on record along with rejoinder to reply of respondent No.2, wherein Smt. Jalpa has categorically stated that at the time of recording her statement, police did not record the same correctly and completely but recorded the same as per their whims. Mohal Lal and Bharat Kumar have also stated that they were present on spot and they took the victim to Kullu hospital in Ambulance where police had come and they along with Jalpa had narrated the entire incident to police and police had noted their names and phone numbers by saying that they will be called for recording their statements but they were neither called by police nor their statements were recorded. 17. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another reported in (2002)5 SCC 521 the Supreme Court has observed:- “5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by the CBI, the said power 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 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. 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. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause, A. Registered Society vs. Union of India ( (1999)6 SCC 667 . This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the report has held thus: (SCC p.750, para 174) "174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate "any other offence" is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of "LIFE" and "LIBERTY" guaranteed to a person under Article 21of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of "LIFE" has been explained in a manner which has infused "LIFE" into the letters of Article 21.” 6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the Police or the CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a lawabiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by the CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by the CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common Cause.” 18. In State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010)3 SCC 571 the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. 70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil 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. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations. 71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002)5 SCC 521 , this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.” 19 In State of Punjab vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, reported in (2011)9 SCC 182 , the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “22…...The language of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC, therefore, cannot limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for fresh investigation or reinvestigation if the High Court is satisfied that such fresh investigation or reinvestigation is necessary to secure the ends of justice. …… 32. In the recent case of State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 571] a Constitution Bench of this Court, while holding that no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, has cautioned that the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. This caution equally applies to the cases where the High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to direct investigation by the CBI for securing the ends of justice.” 20. This caution equally applies to the cases where the High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to direct investigation by the CBI for securing the ends of justice.” 20. In Advocates Association, Bangalore vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2013)10 SCC 611 , by referring paras 69 and 70 of pronouncement of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights reported in (2010)3 SCC 571 , referred supra, keeping in view the nature of matter, and fact that composition of SIT, in that case, itself had not been finalized, it was considered that CBI inquiry is necessitated in the said matter. 21 In present case, it is undisputed that a criminal incident had occurred in broad day light on a Highway which is claimed to be witnessed by local persons and District Police has failed to trace the culprits despite making all efforts and therefore, without going into allegations and counter allegations by petitioners and respondent No.2 against each other, which are not necessary to be determined in present petition, nature of petition and prayer made therein and also the facts and circumstances of case, I am of considered opinion that for the ends of justice, further investigation is necessitated in the matter in issue and therefore, Director General of Police is directed to ensure further investigation in the matter by assigning the investigation to State CID on or before 21st March, 2023 which shall be conducted by an Officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. Investigation shall be completed on or before 30th June, 2023 and its report shall be submitted before the competent Magistrate for further action in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.