Honble JAIN, J.–By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to transfer the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 170/95 lodged under Section 498A, 304-B and 201 IPC, P.S. Behror,dated 20.6.1995 and FIR No. No. 259/95 dated 8.9.95 under Sections 147, 148, 389/388 IPC of P.S. Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan to C.B.I. or any other independent investigating agency. (2). It is alleged that Smt. Krishna daughter of the petitioner was married with one Sandeep son of Bir Singh, Sarpanch at Behror on 12.12.1994 and within six years of the marriage she expired on 14.6.1996 and there is sufficient material of contin- uing harassment, torture and demand of dowry on the record to prove that her death was not natural, and on this basis he lodged F.I.R. No.170/95 dated 20.6.95 at P.S. Behrod. The petitioner approached their lordships of the Supreme Court by filing an S.L.P. on 7.5.95 but the same was withdrawn, with a direction to approach the High Court. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition alongwith number of documents. (3). In pursuance of the show cause notice issued by this Court, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have filed reply, stating that investigation is concluded without being influenced by any one. (4). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case the death has occurred within seven years of marriage and there is sufficient material showing that the death is not natural but still without making proper inquiry/investigation, without issuing notice and without taking recourse to Section 176 IPC, submitted the Final Report which itself goes to show that the respondents have not conducted the investigation fairly with a view to help the cul- prits, therefore, in the interest of justice the investigation be transferred to C.B.I. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Kashmiri Devi vs. Delhi Administration, (1), in and on the decision, in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Phool Chand (2). (5). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that after investigation the police has submitted Final Report. (5). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that after investigation the police has submitted Final Report. He further submits that the petitioner has only a right to file a protest petition and if the Magistrate is satisfied that it needs further investigation/inquiry and the investigation is not fair, he can direct for further re-investigation. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the case law. (7). This court merely on asking for transfer of investigation to CBI does not grant the desired relief. Though this Court has power and writ of mandamus can be issued to transfer the investigation if it is satisfied that investigation has not been properly and in rightful manner, done. (8). The decision reported in 1988 S.C. 1323 (supra), does not help the petitioner as in that case deceased died in the police custody owing to injury caused due to beating by the police and investigating officer converted the charge from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC and further converted to Section 323/34 IPC. Under the circumstances their lordships directed the trial court to transfer the case for investigation to CBI. (9). Likewise, the Division Bench decision reported in RCC 1989, 214 (supra) is not of any help to the petitioner, as in that case the respondent-State has filed Special Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the case was transferred to CBI. The Division Bench though observed that the learned Single Jud- ge without any finding that investigation is not proper, but did not interfere, as transfer was made long back and it was almost at the final stage, However, some guidelines were framed. (10). One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Murarilal, the alleged Sarpanch, has stated on 14.10.95 that 4 persons told him that the body of the deceased Krishna was taken out by them from the well but they were not examined despite the fact that names were mentioned in the diary and to controvert this the respondent-State has filed the affidavit of the officer-in-charge stating that the so-called diary has already been produced before the concerned Magistrate alongwith the Final Report. It is pertinant to note that ultimately the prosecution has to prove its case as per evidence on the basis of prima facie investigation and the evidence cannot be appreciated at this stage. This court can only see whether fair and proper investigation is being conducted by the prosecution or not. As to whether there is suspicious circumstances or any unnatural death as to find out the appropriate cause of her death, is to be seen on the basis of the circumstances come in the investigation. Undisputedly each case depends upon the facts of its own. (11). In the instant case, after investigation, Final Report has been submitted which is pending consideration and this Court vide order dated 26.8.96 has already directed not to finalise the final report till the pendency of this writ petition and the petitioner can file protest petition raising all objections and the Magistrate concerned will consider the same in the facts and circumstances of the case, so the confidence of the public can also be reposed in a fair investigation. (12). As Stated, the Magistrate is not precluded from re- investigation in respect of any offence, even when the Final Report has been forwarded to him. Under the circumstances, as already stated, the petitioner will be free to raise all his objections before the concerned Magistrate including the point of further inves- tigation and it is expected that the concerned Magistrate may consider and will appreciate the same as per law. (13). For the reasons mentioned above at this stage,I am not inclined to interfere in the extra ordinary jurisdiction and no direction, as prayed for, can be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No order as to costs.