(2 . Q9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR simE 35m; w.P'.(Cr. )No. 1953 “/2010 PETITIONER Dr. D.S. Sonwani S/o Late Manohar Sonwani, Aged about 65 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar Tikrapara, _ In front of Policegstation Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) . VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) ’ State of Chhattisgarh ThroughSecretary Home Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Inspector General of Police, ,Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Superintending of Police, Raipur, District Raip .G. Station Huse Officer, Police Station New Rajenclra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under: g ur (C) o WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CL) No. 1983 of 2010 PETITIONER '. Dr. D.S. Sonwani VERS US RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA‘ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satisii K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Y.C. Shanna and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Vet-ma, Advocates for the ‘ petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. , (Passed o ORDER ORAL n 12‘ day of August, 2010) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the alleged incident, after investigation, the Court has taken cognizance of the matter as charge sheet has been filed. Thereafter, an application was made under the provisions of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for further investigation. The Court has passed an orderfor further investigation. Now the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been nled seeking a writ of mandamus. directing enquiry by a special prosecution agency. When the judicial Court has already taken cognizance and there are sufficient remedies available under the provisions of law to pass an ~ order in respect of further enquiry, this petition cannot be entertained during pendency of the trial for directing an enquiry by a special prosecution agency. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. However, libertyis reserved to‘ the petitioner to make ‘ proper application before the judicial Court, where the matter is pendin trial, if so advised. / g