SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPCRL No.218 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Prabhkar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned AGA for the State. 3. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.5- CBI. 4. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.7. 5. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to transfer the investigation from regular police to CBI or any other agency. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that investigation has not been carried out by the investigating agency properly, therefore, the final report has been submitted. He further submits that judgments of two civil suits have been annexed by the private respondent in the short counter affidavit has nothing to do with the writ petitioner. 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.7 has filed a short counter affidavit, bringing on record there from that after investigation, the final report has been submitted by the investigating agency on 03.11.2023 against which protest petition has been filed by the petitioner, which too, has been rejected vide order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Misc. Case No.38 of 2024, Shiv Dutt Joshi vs. Mahant Devendra Das & others. 2 8. In reply to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has nothing to do with the civil suits decided between the parties, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no.7 that the petitioner is a plaintiff in one of the Original Suit No.132 of 2004, Shiv Dutt Joshi vs. Radhey Mohan Sharma. 9. Be that as it may, without looking into the aspect whether the suits are pending between the parties or not, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the final report has been filed and the protest petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected, petitioner has got a remedy to challenge that order which is passed in protest petition on 18.01.2025 in Misc. Case No. 38 of 2024, Shiv Dutt Joshi vs. Mahent Devendra Das & others. 10. In this view of the matter, nothing remains to be decided in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.04.2025 AK