IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 2010 (M/B) Yashpal Singh ….....Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….…Respondents. Present:- Sri S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, for the writ petitioner. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate, for respondent no. 4. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer and handover the investigation of Case Crime No. 1 of 2007, relating to offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304 A IPC at P.S. Jhebreda, district Haridwar to Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, we find that the Investigating Agency, after investigation has already submitted its final report (copy Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3). 4. The complainant/writ petitioner has a remedy to file protest petition before the Magistrate concerned challenging the findings of the Investigating Agency. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence alleged and the fact that the investigation has 2 already been concluded, we do not find it to be a fit case for directing investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation. 6. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the writ petition is dismissed with observation that the petitioner is at liberty to file protest petition before the Magistrate concerned. 7. Application, if any, pending in this case also stands disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 18.11.2010 Rathour