THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :15414 of 2009 DATED: 15-09-2009 Between: K.V.S.N.Murthy. ..... PETITIONER And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to refer Cr.No.80 of 2009, registered by the Station House Officer, Panjagutta police station, Hyderabad, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences Wing), Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts are that M/s Twin Cities Infotech Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act and it committed fraud by collecting huge money from the general public. Petitioner is one of the sufferers and he invested huge money i.e., he bought 9600 shares at the face value of Rs.10/- per share (Rs.96,000/-). Thereafter, there was no communication from the said company. 3. In the light of the above, the petitioner approached the police station, Panjagutta and made a complaint on 21-01-2009 and the police registered a case in Cr.No.80 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter, as there was no progress and according to the petitioner as he was not served with a copy of the First Information Report, he approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to furnish a copy of the First Information Report and also to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences Wing) Hyderabad for proper investigation. 4. In my considered view, this Writ Petition is misconceived. It is true that the petitioner approached the police and gave a report and the same was registered as Cr.No.80 of 2009. If he has any apprehension that the police are not conducting the investigation properly, he could have approached the Superintendent of police/Commissioner of Police and submit a representation as provided for under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. 5. It appears, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of police and gave a representation on 11-03-2009. Even if the Commissioner of police does not act properly, it cannot be said that the petitioner is remediless. He could have approached the competent criminal Court and file a private complaint as provided under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the Court would have either taken cognizance or referred the matter to the police for proper investigation. In fact, in a recent judgment reported in SAKIRI VASU v. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS[1] the Supreme Court has taken the view that by mere asking, the matters shall not be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of investigation. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: “It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Cr.P.C., if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001 (3) SCC 333 ( vide para 11); R.P.Kapur v. S.P.Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1117 etc., Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar v. A.C.Saldanna (supra). No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI vide CBI v. State of Rajasthan and another (supra), but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI. That, however should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them”. 6. Hence, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ T.GOPALAKRISHNA,J 15th September, 2009. Tsy [1] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 907