IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.04.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Subhash Sharma. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant, against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ragjarh dismissing his application under Section 156 (3) and 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for re-investigation/further investigation in the case. 2. The application was moved by the complainant on the ground that the police were purportedly shielding the culprits in the case. A case was registered and First Information was lodged by the police against respondents 2 to 5 when an application under Section 156 (3) read with Section 178 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the complainant praying for additional 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 investigation. According to the complainant certain loopholes have been left by the investigating agency and, therefore, further investigation is required. 3. The learned trial Court, on the averments made dismissed the application holding that the record shows that allegations made by the complainant are not correct. I am not going into the details of the findings by learned Trial Court as it may prejudice the trial. All that I need to say that it is not open to the petitioner to direct the investigation of the case in the manner in which he wants. The learned Court below has dealt with each and every circumstance pointed out by the petitioner herein and holds that the averments made by him are not borne out from the record. In these circumstances, I do not find any error which has been committed by learned Trial Court. This Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the prosecution for moving any other or further application in accordance with law. April 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge