2025:JHHC:16394 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(Cr.) No.386 of 2025 ----- Shakti Singh Lohia @ Jassi Lohia @ Shakti, son of Gajendir Singh Lohiya, R/o Sarweshwari Nagar, behind ITI Bus Stand, Pandra OP, PO Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : AC to AG …...... 06 /20.06.2025: Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayers: (a) for quashing the FIR and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeonagar PS Case No. 615 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-1) registered for offences punishable under sections 126(2)/115(2)/352/351(2)(3)/117(2)/109/132/191(2)/191(3) of BNS which is pending in the court of Sri Vikram Anand, Ld. JM at Ranchi And/or (b) for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the investigation to be carried out by the CBI or any other independent agency as in the instant matter the role of police officers itself are suspicious as they have acted arbitrarily, unfairly and in a biased manner as such fair investigation from them can’t be expected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police visited the house of the petitioner at night on 19.12.2024 without giving notice entered the house and searched goods and articles, dragged the petitioner out from the house, tortured the petitioner and his family members and false cases have been lodged against them for which he had made a complaint to higher authorities but till date no step has been taken. Hence the said case be given to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fair investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the police started investigation of the case immediately after the incident. There is no illegality committed by the police during the investigation. Thus, this writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 2025:JHHC:16394 2 5. After going through the materials on record, I find that the main prayer of the petitioner is of submitting the investigation conducted by the police, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 6. In Criminal Justice System the investigation of an offence is the domain of the police officials. The Court ordinarily should not interfere in the matter of investigation by the police when the facts and circumstances do not indicate that the investigation was conducted in a malafide manner. However, when the Court finds that the police officer has exercised his investigatory power in breach of statutory provision or he is using that power in an illegal and improper manner or the investigation is tainted with animosity, the Court may intervene. Transferring a case from the police to the CBI for investigation by the Court must be wielded with utmost caution and only be done in exceptional circumstances. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pooja Pal v. Union of India” reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 at paragraph no. 85 has held as under: “85. As succinctly summarised by this Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Right [State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401] , the extraordinary power of the constitutional courts in directing CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, when it is necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. In our comprehension, each of the determinants is consummate and independent by itself to justify the exercise of such power and is not interdependent on each other.” 8. From the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find that the power to transfer investigation from the police to the CBI should be exercised sparingly and cautiously. The said power cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Only when the Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case thinks there are materials which necessitates interference of the Court the Court may direct for a CBI investigation. 9. Taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court when I go through the materials on record, I find that the case 2025:JHHC:16394 3 was lodged on 20.12.2024 and during investigation police reached the house of the petitioner and taken the petitioner in custody which was objected by wife and brother of the petitioner which instigated the crowd of 40-50 people of the locality and they started scuffling with the police party and started pelting stone and even released the petitioner from the custody. I find no illegally committed by the police during the event and it is the people of the locality who obstructed the police from doing their work. 10. From the effort of the police during investigation, I do not find any latches as the investigation was carried on in a proper and regular manner. There is nothing to suggest that the police has not acted in a bonafide manner. Further there is no evidence that the investigation was rigged or there is an incomplete investigation. Further, I find that there are criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner is not able to put forth any reasonable ground to transfer the case to the CBI. 11. Considering the aforesaid fact, I find that there is no material to remotely suggest that this case needs to be investigated by the CBI. Thus, the prayers of the petitioner is rejected and, accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/