The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to ensure the fair and unbiased conduct of investigations, the wide powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the importance of securing the ends of justice.

H.S. Bhalla, J. - The prayer made in the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for issuance of a direction to hand over the investigation of case FIR No. 98 dated 13.3.2007 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Annexure P-22) and FIR No. 10 dated 8.9.2007 registered under Sections 168, 169, 216, 218, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Police Station Vigilance Bureau, FSI, Punjab, District Mohali (Annexure P-33) to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other Independent Agency outside the control of the State of Punjab, as these two FIRs are the result of mala fide and political vendetta or any other order which this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has lost confidence in the investigating team being headed by Surinder Pal Singh, respondent No. 8, who is bent upon to involve the petitioner by conducting investigation in a biased manner under the direction of the Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, respondent No. 5. Learned counsel has further contended that the FIR registered against the petitioner is primarily on the ground of amassing property disproportionately from his known sources of income and is the result of mala fides and political vendetta. Learned counsel has further contended that there is no private complainant in the present FIR and the same has been registered at the behest of the Vigilance Bureau itself, Punjab, making Shri Surinder Pal Singh, respondent No. 8 as a complainant and Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel has further vehemently contended that respondent No. 8 Shri Surinder Pal Singh, while conducting investigating of this case, completely suppressed participation of his wife regarding purchase of land from the Cooperative Society in question of which she is a member of the Executive Body. Learned counsel has further contended that the present government repealed the Punjab State Vigilance Commission Act, 2006 (for short the Act) to give undue advantage to the officers of its liking. Learned counsel has further hotly contended that arrest of the petitioner was done in a haphazard manner, thereby violating the rules and guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court with a view to defame him and malign his reputation in the eyes of society.

3. Per contra, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab has valiantly contended that the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. Learned counsel has further laid much stress on the point that the apprehension of the petitioner that the investigation will not be done in a fair manner is without any basis, particularly when Shri Surinder Pal Singh, respondent No. 8, has not actively participated in the investigation nor his wife is beneficiary in any manner. Learned State counsel has further contended that the appointment of the Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab is in accordance with law and that there is no personal grudge against the petitioner in any manner.

4. I have heard learned Senior counsel Shri R.S. Cheema appearing for the petitioner assisted by Shri K.S. Nalwa, Advocate and Ms. Reeta Kohli, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab meticulously.

5. Before I deal with the point of maintainability of the petition, I would like to refer to the relevant points raised during the course of arguments and to be discussed hereinafter and if the court, on the basis of mala fide intention on part of the investigating team, comes to a conclusion that injustice has been done to the petitioner and t