IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1098 of 2008 DAYANAND JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 04/09/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the vigilance. The prayer in this application is for a direction for proper investigation of Special Case No.24/08 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.33/08. The additional prayer is that if required the investigation be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Dealing with the second prayer first, it is apparent that the petitioner is himself diffident in seeking the relief and seems to be uncertain of himself when he states that “if the circumstances so required”. The fact that in the opinion of the petitioner the investigation may not have been to his satisfaction shall not make the present a case for a direction for an investigation by the C.B.I. No special features or circumstances of an unfair investigation of a nature to distrust the State Vigilance has been pointed out. The prayer to that extent is rejected. The allegations in Vigilance P.S. Case 2 No.33/08 are with regard to illegalities in evaluating and awarding of marks to the candidates at the three centres mentioned in the F.I.R. From the allegations in the F.I.R. it appears that for the three centres coordinators were appointed for each centre whose names were not being disclosed. It was only informed that some of them had been appointed by the Board and the remaining teachers/staff from the concerned school had been appointed whose wages were paid by the Board for the said Works. Apart from the individual coordinators at the three centres, a monitoring Board consisting of three persons was also deputed at each centre. The petitioner was one of such persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court that in fact he had informed the irregularities to the Board. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that investigation has been concluded with regard to certain persons and charge-sheet submitted, which includes the petitioner also, while investigation is pending against others. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with an F.I.R. much less with an investigation stands circumscribed by repeated judicial pronouncements. The law stands well settled that this Court cannot 3 interfere with the investigation. The investigation has to proceed in accordance with the procedure provided for under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If so advised, the petitioner can seek his remedies thereunder. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)