ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 and Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, petitioner No.2 in person. Also heard Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State / respondent Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 & 8, Mr. Abhijit Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.4, Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.9 and Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, respondent No.10 in person. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to place and produce all the record related with the petitioner’s and respondent No.10 for just and proper decision of the case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondent No.5 or any likewise agency under the gracious supervision of this Hon’ble Court to submit the fair investigation report in the cases and record whatever which made and prepared against the petitioner’s by the respondent No.9 and the involvement and indulgence of the respondent No.9 and its extent for just and proper decision of the case. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing to take appropriate actions against the respondent No.9 and bonafide action by registering appropriate offence for abusing the process of law and for starting an initiating malice prosecution against the petitioner’s looking to the high placed of posting of the respondent No.9 the strongest and hardest punishment may kindly be proposed against the respondent No.9, so that it will give a message to the society that any person cannot abuse the process of law and cannot disrespect the honor of the family or derail any member of the family or the girl by using their power and status. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing to initiate appropriate judicial enquiry over the actual damage caused by the respondent No.9 to the petitioner’s and the respondent No.10 also by examining every aspect of the issue particularly about the continuous meeting of the respondent No.10 & 9 and also the reason for false acquisition leveled against the petitioner’s which was duly forwarded for registration of FIR by the respondent No.10. Any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued by this Hon’ble Court for just and proper decision of the case and also to do the complete justice. 10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, namely, late Pankaj Shrivastava was a practicing renowned lawyer of the Chhattisgarh, who died by committing suicide by hanging in the intervening night of 07-08/03/2014 which was a result of abatement of the wife of Pankaj Shrivastava, namely, Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, herein respondent No.10. Even though Late Pankaj Shrivastava had performed love marriage with respondent No.10, the petitioner No.1 and his entire family accepted the said marriage which was solemnized on 20.04.2008. By that time, the petitioner No.1 had already been retired from the service. 4. During the life time, late Pankaj Shrivastava made three assets as a Joint Hindu Family property with the aid of mother-father, the wife of petitioner No.1 was also a government servant, who retired from the post of Teacher. One family property was given to late Pankaj Shrivastava to construct his house and after construction was given to late Pankaj Shrivastava which is situated in front of old High Court premises in which presently the respondent No.10 is residing. After the marriage of late Pankaj Shrivastava, his relation was cordial with the respondent No.10 for a period of about one year and thereafter the relation started becoming strain. The relations between late Pankaj Shrivastava and the respondent No.10 became strain as a result of abortion of the baby within a period of six months from the date of marriage. After the marriage of late Pankaj Shrivastava, his relation was cordial with the respondent No.10 for a period of about one year and thereafter the relation started becoming strain. The relations between late Pankaj Shrivastava and the respondent No.10 became strain as a result of abortion of the baby within a period of six months from the date of marriage. Late Pankaj Shrivastava was not ready and willing for the said abortion, but under the pressure and tough treatment, consent was given by late Pankaj Shrivastava and the same was the origin of the dispute between late Pankaj Shrivastava and respondent No.10. After the said abortion, late Pankaj Shrivastava tried to get another issue, but unfortunately the respondent No.10 never accepted the same situation in the life and as a result of the same behavior and circumstances, the relations between them become worst and the relation become so worst in the year 2012, the respondent No.10 deserted late Pankaj Shrivastava and started living at New Delhi. She was taking monthly maintenance amount from the pocket of late Pankaj Shrivastava and she had also instructed to deposit some amount in the account of the father of respondent No.10, which also was being regularly deposited by late Pankaj Shrivastava. 5. In New Delhi, the respondent No.10 was indulged in an affair about which she also disclosed the fact to late Pankaj Shrivastava and the same fact is evident from the last WhatsApp conversation and it came to the knowledge of the family of the petitioner’s because when the hot talks and WhatsApp conversation were going on between late Pankaj Shrivastava and respondent No.10, on fateful night and when the respondent No.10 felt that as a result of her abatement, Pankaj Shrivastava committed suicide then at about 12 p.m., she made a call to petitioner No.2 on the telephone itself when the respondent No.10 informed that probably Pankaj Shrivastava has committed suicide, he should go and check. After hearing the words, petitioner No.2 rushed to the house of late Pankaj Shrivastava where he found Pankaj Shrivastava in a hanging position upon which he immediately informed the police and all other legal formalities were done. 6. After hearing the words, petitioner No.2 rushed to the house of late Pankaj Shrivastava where he found Pankaj Shrivastava in a hanging position upon which he immediately informed the police and all other legal formalities were done. 6. After completion of funeral and other associated rituals, the petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint before respondent No.8 on 23.03.2014 against respondent No.10 and when the mobile phone of late Pankaj was received by the family members, friends and other neighbors saw the WhatsApp conversation of late Pankaj Shrivastava and the respondent No.10. In those conversation, the things were crystal clear that abetment by the respondent No.10 to late Pankaj Shrivastava was the cause of unfortunate suicide being committed, therefore, again on 30/31.03.2014, petitioner No.1 lodged a detailed complaint with WhatsApp conversation before respondent No.6 & 7. Thereafter, the respondent No.10 started pressurizing the petitioner’s for taking the complaint back and threatened the entire family to be roped in false cases. As the police did not take any action on the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner No.1 was left with no option but to make a representation to the Governor on 04.04.2014 and again on 21.04.2014 to the respondent No.8. The State machinery failed to redress the grievances of the bereaved father. However, as already designed by Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, a civil dispute was raised by her after the death of Late Shri Pankaj Shrivastava with the petitioner’s and their family. She designed to dispose of the property belonging to the joint family of late Shri Pankaj Shrivastava by selling and disposing the family property which was strongly resisted by the petitioner’s No.1 with the help of petitioner No.2. In this regard, the petitioner’s took steps to protect their interest and legal notices were sent through lawyer to different institutions such as Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. (LIC), State Bank of India (SBI)-Life Insurance Company and petitioner No.1 and his wife has also filed civil suit for succession and declaration and Injunction against respondent No.10, and in all these cases, they obtained stay from the competent Court of law. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed by petitioner No.1 before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WPCR No.134 of 2014 for a direction to the police to enquire into and investigate upon the complaint made by him with regard to abetment caused by Smt. Neetu Shrivastava. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed by petitioner No.1 before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WPCR No.134 of 2014 for a direction to the police to enquire into and investigate upon the complaint made by him with regard to abetment caused by Smt. Neetu Shrivastava. This Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 09.01.2015, directed the police to process the matter and submit final report in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 . 7. After direction of this Court, respondent No.8 registered the FIR vide crime No.26 of 2015 against Smt. Neetu Shrivastava for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC on 06.02.2015 after taking one month further time. In between of this process, the respondent No.10 developed close relation with the respondent No.9 and as a result of the same, investigation which was going on in a proper and right direction was derailed by the respondent No.9. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.9, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner No.1 with the help of petitioner No.2 before the respondent No.2 regarding abatement being caused by respondent No.10, resulting into death of Late Pankaj Shrivastava, whereby they have sought a detailed inquiry and action against the respondent No.9 on 12.05.2015, but the said complaint was rejected and the same has been consigned to record by the respondent No.2 on 08.02.2016 on the basis of report dated 01.02.2016 submitted by the Legal Advisor. Being aggrieved by the said rejection order, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners. 9. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 submitted that Smt. Neetu Shrivastava / respondent No.10 in connivance with respondent No.9 got prepared and submitted a report through Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), Bilaspur in which it has been opined by the ASP that no case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the respondent No.10 but a case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioner’s and their family as per false complaint which was lodged by the respondent No.10. However, earlier the City Superintendent of Police (CSP) submitted a report that no case under Section 498-A is made out against petitioner’s and their family. However, earlier the City Superintendent of Police (CSP) submitted a report that no case under Section 498-A is made out against petitioner’s and their family. He further argued that respondent No.9 is not at all legally empowered and entitled to direct for investigation in all the cases or the allegations made against the petitioners by the respondent No.9, specially without there being any allegation by the respondent No.10 that the other authorities have not taken action in her case or complaint. A bare reading of all the 9 offences registered against the petitioners at the instance of the respondent No.10 itself is evident of the fact that there is a malafide intention on the part of the respondent No. 10 which is in connivance with the respondent No. 9 just to cause damage, harm and ruin the reputation of the petitioners. He also argued that on every occasion directly the complaint is made by respondent No.10 to respondent No.9 only and under able influence and power of the respondent No.9, continuously offences are being registered against the petitioners and their family members. 10. Mr. Sharma further contended that the first information report after the suicide by late Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate was lodged by petitioner No.1, detailed statements were made and at that time, there was no connivance between the respondent No.9 and 10. The FIR was duly registered and investigation was done by the officer and the legal proceedings were going on, but immediately after the indulgence of respondent No.9 in this case, everything changed and turned as per the version of respondent No.10. 11. Mr. Sharma also contended that the petitioners have preferred a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog (respondent No.2) regarding abatement being caused by respondent No.10 resulting into death of Late Pankaj Shrivastava, whereby they have sought a detailed inquiry and action against the respondent No.9. On the said complaint, respondent No.2 issued notice to the respondent No.9 and just after issuance of the said notice, the respondent No.10 appeared before the respondent No.2 and filed application without any information to the petitioners or to respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 raised objection for the same. This fact itself is sufficient to demonstrate that respondent No.9 and 10 are fighting the battle together for the reason and purpose best known to them only, the same is not expected from a highly placed officer i.e. respondent No.9. This fact itself is sufficient to demonstrate that respondent No.9 and 10 are fighting the battle together for the reason and purpose best known to them only, the same is not expected from a highly placed officer i.e. respondent No.9. Ultimately, the said complaint was rejected and consigned to record by the respondent No.2, which is against the provisions of law. 12. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, petitioner No.2 in person, submitted that his brother late Pankaj Shrivastava has committed suicide due to abatement caused by his wife respondent No.10, for which FIR was lodged against her under Section 306 of the IPC. Smt. Neetu Shrivastava - respondent No.10 in connivance with respondent No.9 got prepared and submitted a report through Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), Bilaspur in which it has been opined by the ASP that no case u/s 306 IPC is made out against the respondent No.10 but a case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioner’s and their family as per false complaint which was lodged by the respondent No.10. Thereafter, a complaint was made to Lok Ayog to take action against respondent No.9. The said complaint was rejected vide order dated 08.02.2016 by the respondent No.2 on the basis of inquiry report submitted by Legal Advisor dated 01.02.2026, de hors the provisions of law is an abuse of process of law by the respondent No.9. It was further put-forth by Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, petitioner No.2 in person that the inquiry report was submitted by the Legal Advisor under the supervision of respondent No.9 himself, against whom the application was made to the Lok Ayog regarding the malafide use of his powers and functions. 13. In furtherance of the above submission, it was also put-forth that against the rejection by Lok Ayog (Annexure-P/1), present petition has been filed by the petitioners and during pendency of the instant petition, the respondent No. 10 has lodged as many as 9 cases against different persons and the petitioners which have been registered only after interference / direction of respondent No.9. He further submitted that during pendency of the instant petition, one Asha Yadav (Constable No. 233) had made allegation against respondent No.9 with regard to sexual harassment upon which an enquiry was conducted by Vishakha Committee and submitted its report, in which it was revealed that the respondent No.10 talked with respondent No.9 on phone about 12 times and thus it is clear that, the respondent No.10 was in regular contact with respondent No.9 and there was no explanation given by respondent No.9 as well as respondent No.10 in this regard. It is also important to mention here that, the allegation made against respondent No.9 by said Asha Yadav was found to be proved and though in the enquiry report it has been recommended that appropriate action should be taken against respondent No.9, but due to approach and conspiracy of respondent No.9, till date the authorities have not taken any action against him. 14. Mr. A.K. Samantray, learned counsel, appearing for Lok Ayog / respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 in person and submitted that in the instant case upon receiving the complaint, enquiry has been conducted and factual report has been called upon from the Director General of Police and after receiving the factual report, on the basis of facts available on record, no misconduct was found to be committed by the public servant i.e. respondent No.9 as defined under Section 2(h) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act of 2002’) and therefore, the matter was closed and intimation was given to the complainant. 15. Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 would submit that the crux of the matter revolves around the dispute which arose between respondent No.10 and son of petitioner No.1 named late Pankaj Shrivastava who was a practicing lawyer. The present petition is just an attempt to hamper the reputation of the respondent No. 9 whereby they are trying to make out a case and they are liable to be punished under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 whereby which the petitioners are intentionally insulting the respondent No. 9 and making false allegations. The present petition is just an attempt to hamper the reputation of the respondent No. 9 whereby they are trying to make out a case and they are liable to be punished under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 whereby which the petitioners are intentionally insulting the respondent No. 9 and making false allegations. The averment with respect to the Respondent No. 9 filing his objection before the respondent No. 2 is devoid of merits as the respondent No. 10 is an independent lady who wanted to participate in the proceedings of the Respondent No. 2 which has nothing to do with the respondent No. 9 and no inference can be drawn from the objection submitted by the petitioners in the instant case. The grounds raised in this petition are only the matter of fact and does not carry any importance and relevance in the instant petition as the facts and grounds raised in the instant petition cannot be considered for adjudication of the instant case. The instant petition is drafted with an ulterior motive for damaging the reputation of the answering respondent and therefore, liable to be dismissed at the threshold. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Asif Azad vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC Online Ker 1950 and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) V. K. Parasaran, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 530 . 16. Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, respondent No.10 in person, submitted that there have been other cases related to 498-A and civil matters which are in continuation with the proceedings under the respective forums. The present case is related to the dispute between respondent No.9 and the petitioners, who are challenging the inquiry made by Lok Ayog in connivance with respondent No.9, she has wrongly been made as party in the instant case. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition and also perused the return/ rejoinder filed on their behalf. 18. The question for consideration is, whether the petitioners have made out a case for issuance of writ for investigation of the impugned transaction by Central Bureau of Investigation? 19. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition and also perused the return/ rejoinder filed on their behalf. 18. The question for consideration is, whether the petitioners have made out a case for issuance of writ for investigation of the impugned transaction by Central Bureau of Investigation? 19. Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') defines “investigation” which includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. 20. Investigation usually starts on the information relating to the commission of the offence given to the officer in charge of the police station and duly recorded under Section 154 of the Code. For the purpose of investigation, the offences are divided into two categories cognizable and non-cognizable. In cognizable offences, the police have statutory power to investigate without the permission of the Magistrate. Section 154 of the Code prescribes the mode of recording the information received orally or in writing by an officer in charge of the police station, in respect of a cognizable offence. Section 156 authorises such an officer to investigate. 21. There are authorities in favour of the view that a police officer can enter the investigation in respect of a cognizable offence even in the absence of the receipt of information. The receipt of information is not the condition precedent for entering the investigation. 22. In the matter of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 182, the Privy Council held that in the case of cognizable offences receipt and recording of first information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of criminal investigation and observed as under: - “In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then.” 23. In the matter of S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and others, AIR 1970 SC 786 , their Lordships have held as follows: - “7. ... It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers. …” 24. Likewise, in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221 , the Supreme Court referring to the definition of expression 'investigation' in Section 4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which is pari materia to Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and referring to the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 describing the procedure prescribed for investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by a majority decision of Two to one held, that though ordinarily investigation is undertaken on information received by the Police Officer, the receipt of information is not a condition precedent for investigation. It has further been held that Section 157 of the Code prescribes the procedure in the matter of such an investigation which can be initiated either on information or otherwise and that the provision would show that an officer in-charge of a police station can start investigation either on information or otherwise. 25. Likewise, in the matter of M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, 2004 Cri.L.J. 822, it has been held that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer-in-charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information and the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the Courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation. 26. Likewise, in the matter of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, 2003 Cri.L.J. 3117, it was observed as under: - “There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate.” Their Lordships further observed that the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary. 27. From the aforesaid analysis, it is quite vivid that for initiation and continuance of investigation, reporting of the commission of cognizable offence is a condition precedent and unless the cognizable offence is said to have been committed, investigation under Section 2(h) of the Code cannot commence. 28. With regard to the claim of the petitioners for investigation by a specialised agency (CBI), it would be appropriate to refer to the pertinent pronouncements rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this regard. 29. In the matter of Common Cause v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the scope and ambit of a criminal case being tried or to direct an investigation by CBI, it was held as under:- “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. 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 21 of 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.” 30. Similarly, in the matter of Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 , delineating the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing an inquiry by CBI, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: - “5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by 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. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in Common Cause (supra).” 31. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 again considering the question of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing CBI to investigate cognizable offence in a State without the consent of the State Government, pertinently observed the circumstances on which the investigation by CBI can be directed, as under:- “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. 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. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to 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 extraordinary power must 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. Otherwise 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.” 32. In the matter of Ram Jethmalani and others v. Union of India and others, (2011) 8 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court in respect of unaccounted money and black money constituted Special Investigation Team by holding as under:- “56. We note that in many instances, in the past, when issues referred to the Court have been very complex in nature, and yet required the intervention of the Court, Special Investigation Teams have been ordered and constituted in order to enable the Court, and the Union of India and/or other organs of the State, to fulfill their constitutional obligations. The following instances may be noted: Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 199 , NHRC v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 8 SCC 610 , Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2005) 5 SCC 517 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 560 .” 33. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and another, (2014) 5 SCC 252 , where the prayer was made for constituting SIT or directing CBI to inquire into the communal riots erupted in and around District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh in 2013, declined to grant CBI inquiry or constitution of SIT with the following findings:- “121. In the light of various steps taken by the State, facts and figures, statistics supported by materials coupled with the various principles enunciated in the decisions referred above, we are of the view that there is no need to either constitute SIT or entrust the investigation to CBI at this juncture. However, we are conscious of the fact that more effective and stringent measures are to be taken by the State administration for which we are issuing several directions hereunder.” 34. The Supreme Court in Common Cause (supra) has clearly held that direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given and further, in Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services (supra) has clearly held that such a direction can be given only when there is a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such an inquiry. In Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has clearly cautioned the Courts by holding that extraordinary power must 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. 35. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments qua direction to CBI for investigation, the petitioners cannot claim investigation by CBI or by any likewise agency as a matter of right which can only be directed in making out exceptional and extra-ordinary case having national or countrywide ramification. In sum and substance, our considered opinion is that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for investigation by a specialised agency (CBI) in light of the decisions rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-cited cases (supra). 36. In sum and substance, our considered opinion is that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for investigation by a specialised agency (CBI) in light of the decisions rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-cited cases (supra). 36. From perusal of the record it transpires that a complaint was filed by the petitioners before the Lok Ayog against the respondent No.9 alleging that he has misused his position and powers to save respondent No.10, Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, wife of the deceased Late Pankaj Shrivastava and had implicated the petitioners and their family by registering several false cases against them. The complainant in the complaint had stated that by falsifying the evidence in favour of Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, some details have been added separately to the Whatsapp conversation with the aim to protect Smt. Neetu Shrivastava from Section 306 of IPC and to implicate the complainant and his entire family. It is alleged that under the influence of respondent No.9, the Investigating officer has not done fair enquiry and has submitted the closure report. In the said conspiracy, Smt. Neetu Shrivastava as well as Assistant Director of Public Prosecution Shri N.S. Chandel, Bilaspur were included. It is further alleged that while conducting enquiry on the said complaint, though the respondent No.2 has called upon factual report from Director General of Police, but the so-called factual report has been presented by subordinate officers of respondent No.9 through himself. In such as situation, the said report is not reliable on basis of said so-called factual report, without conducting any inquiry, the respondent No.2 has wrongly rejected the complaint and the same has been consigned to record. 37. Now the question arises for consideration is whether action taken by the respondent No.9 is for his own benefit or to save Smt. Neetu Shrivastava by using his power and position and to implicate the complainant and his family members in false case ? 38. From perusal of the record, it is evident that investigation on the offence registered under Section 306 of IPC against respondent No.10 has conducted by the Investigating Officer, respondent No.9 has neither ordered for any investigation nor has exerted any pressure upon the investigating officer or the station-in-charge regarding the investigation of the case. 38. From perusal of the record, it is evident that investigation on the offence registered under Section 306 of IPC against respondent No.10 has conducted by the Investigating Officer, respondent No.9 has neither ordered for any investigation nor has exerted any pressure upon the investigating officer or the station-in-charge regarding the investigation of the case. The Investigation Officer after conducting the investigation, taking evidence of the witnesses and after collecting relevant materials comes to the conclusion that no case is made out against the respondent No.10 under Section 306 of IPC, whereas he found that offence under Section 498-A is made out against the petitioners and accordingly, has submitted closure report. It is always open for the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid closure report before appropriate forum. 39. With regard to the allegation that while conducting enquiry on the complaint filed by the petitioners before respondent No.2 for, though the respondent No.2 has called upon factual report from Director General of Police, but the so-called factual report has been presented by subordinate officers of respondent No.9 through himself, it is evident that the factual report has been submitted by the Office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Investigating Officer of the case and the respondent No.9 has only forwarded the said factual report to the respondent No.2. As such, in our opinion, the respondent No.9 has not committed any offence which could fall under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002. 40. After taking into consideration all the pointers made in the averments made by the petitioners and the respondents, the Court hereby comes to the conclusion that the malpractice by respondent No.9 which was alleged by the petitioners was framed as per the Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002. The said section is herein quoted : “2. Definitions. 40. After taking into consideration all the pointers made in the averments made by the petitioners and the respondents, the Court hereby comes to the conclusion that the malpractice by respondent No.9 which was alleged by the petitioners was framed as per the Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002. The said section is herein quoted : “2. Definitions. - Unless the context otherwise requires, in this Adhiniyam,- (h) "misconduct" by a public servant means and includes that such public servant,- (i) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; (ii) has actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives; (iii) has indulged in corruption, undue favour, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant; (iv) is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and such pecuniary resources or property is held by public servant personally or by any member of his family or by any other person on his behalf.” The ingredients of Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002 includes the acts and conducts of the public servant which would be covered in the domain of term “misconduct”. 41. After hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties and considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court arrives to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to prove the allegations which were made against the respondent No.2 for not conducting fair inquiry against respondent No.9 and also the allegations made against the respondent No.9 for misconduct under 2(h) of the Act of 2002 does not satisfy the ingredients of the aforesaid section as the petitioners were unable to present any relevant evidence against the inquiry made by respondent No.2 and the connivance of respondent No.9 and 10 respectively is also not proved. Hence, we do not find any good ground for interference in the instant case. 42. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, all the pending interim applications are also rejected.