Honble TIBREWAL, J. – There is an old saying ``too many cooks spoil the meals. This equally applies to investigation of a Criminal case by several hands. In fact, this is the real grievance of the complainant in the present case. (2). There is no gain-saying that investigation is the most important aspect in criminal law. In fact, it is the foundation on which the whole pyramid of a criminal case rests. It is therefore, imperative that investigation of a criminal case is prompt, fair and efficient to maintain faith of the people in the system. A proper and timely investigation helps in creating faith, satisfaction and peace in the society by maintaining effective implementation of criminal laws. In a democratic set-up, like ours, based on the concept of `Rule of Law role of the police and its investigating wing becomes more relevant and important and they should know how to function as an efficient and impartial law enforcing agency, wholly motivated and guided by the objectives of service to the public at large, up-holding the Constitutional rights and liability of the people. (3). The capacity of law as an instrument of social change and control of social order has always been considered un-limited. The Upnishadic command runs ``Law is the king of kings, far more rigid and powerful than they. There is nothing higher than law; by its powers as by that of the highest Monarch, the weak shall prevail over the strong. (4). At the out-set, it may be stated that investigation in the present case is far for care, caution and promptness as expected and required in a serious case of murder. More than 4 years have elapsed since the murder of petitioners brother, but still the investigation has not reached to its logical conclusion and has remained as a rolling stone in the hands of different Investigating Agencies and Investigating Officers. This gloomy picture has revealed during the course of arguments requiring appropriate orders. (5). Before dealing with the important aspect relating to the jurisdiction and power of this Court to interfere in the field of investigation, it is necessary to state the relevant facts of the case which are not much in dispute. This gloomy picture has revealed during the course of arguments requiring appropriate orders. (5). Before dealing with the important aspect relating to the jurisdiction and power of this Court to interfere in the field of investigation, it is necessary to state the relevant facts of the case which are not much in dispute. Petitioners elder brother Budha Ram was murdered in the intervening night of 26th and 27th August, 1991 and a report of the same was made by the petitioner in the morning of 27.8.91 at Police Station, Thoi. On the report- Criminal Case No. 152/91 was registered under Sec. 302 and 120-B IPC. In the report, the informant stated the probable cause of murder and the persons who might be involved in it. After registration of the case, the concerned S.H.O. of the Police Station started investigation. He inspected the site and prepared a site plan., Inquest-report of the dead body and recorded statements of several witnesses under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The autopsy of the dead body was conducted by a Medical Board consisting of three Doctors. The investigation of the case remained with the local S.H.O. till September 7, 1991 and thereafter, it was withdrawn from him and handed over to the Dy. S.P/ Circle Officer-Fatehpur Shekhawati-Shri Subhash Bishnoi on the orders of Superintendent of Police, Sikar. The new Investigating Officer again recorded statements of the witnesses which were already recorded by the earlier Investigating Officer. However, the investigation was again withdrawn from him and handed over to CID (CB) of the State. The matter was, then, investigated by several Investigating Offi- cers of the Crime Branch. Initially, it was investigated by Shri Surendra Singh, and thereafter by Shri Naresh Kumar Cheeta, Shri Sita Ram Misra, Shri Mohmmad Irshad, Shri Anil Singh. Shri A.R. Qureshi, Circle Inspector, then, by Shri Sarwar Hussain, Addl. S.P., Shri Amar Singh, Dy. S.P., Shri Prahlad Rai Meena, Dy. S.P., Shri Nanu Ram, Addl., S.P., Shri Mamraj, Dy. S.P., Shri Janardan Sharma, Addl. S.P. of CID (CB). From the police diary it also appears that Shri Nanu Lal, Dy. S.P. and Shri Janardan Sharma, Addl. S.P. had made reports in favour of filing a charge-sheet in the case. At this stage, the investigation was again withdrawn from the CID (CB) and handed over to S.P., Sikar. (6). S.P., Shri Janardan Sharma, Addl. S.P. of CID (CB). From the police diary it also appears that Shri Nanu Lal, Dy. S.P. and Shri Janardan Sharma, Addl. S.P. had made reports in favour of filing a charge-sheet in the case. At this stage, the investigation was again withdrawn from the CID (CB) and handed over to S.P., Sikar. (6). The above facts demonstrate that investigation of the case passed on into several hands for one reason or the other and each of the Investigating Officers has proceeded with the investigation in his own way. Statements of the witnesses have been recorded again and again by different Investigating Officers. Experience shows that if several statements of a witness are recorded by different Investigating Officers in their own way, it is likely to cause serious prejudice to the prosecution case. (7). In the back-ground of the above factual aspects and undue delay in completion of investigation, the complainant has approached this Court with a prayer to issue appropriate direction to non-petitioners. (8). On 24.4.93, this Court passed the following order :– ``Honble Mr. Y.R. Meena, J. G.C. Gupta, for Petitioner S.Goyal, Public Prosecutor for State Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to seek instructions from the respondents regarding the progress of investigation in FIR No. 152/91, P.S. Thoi, Distt. Sikar. It is also brought to my notice that at present the case is pending with CID (CB) and Mr. Janardan Sharma, Addl. Supdt. CID (CB) is the Investigating Officer. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the accused- persons are managing with the police officials, so that the investigation of the matter may not be completed within reasonable time. Shri Gupta sub- mitted that till today 8 Investigation Officers have been changed in this matter, at the request of accused-persons. Even the IO Mr. Janardan Sharma who is seriously investigating into the matter also can be transferred by the I.G. of Police, Crime & Vigilance, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to keep present the I.O. Mr. Janardan Sharma, Addl. Supdt. of Police CID (CB) on, 4.4.94 to explain regarding progress of Investigation in FIR No. 152/91, P.S. Thoi Distt. Sikar, till today. Put up on 4.4.94. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to keep present the I.O. Mr. Janardan Sharma, Addl. Supdt. of Police CID (CB) on, 4.4.94 to explain regarding progress of Investigation in FIR No. 152/91, P.S. Thoi Distt. Sikar, till today. Put up on 4.4.94. When the aforesaid order was not complied with, the Court directed on April 21, 1994 to issue notice to Shri Janardan Sharma, to appear in person and state on oath by an affidavit about the progress made in investigation of the case. This order was also not complied with, hence, on 12.5.94, the following order was passed :– ``Honble Sh. N.L. Tibrewal, J. Yogesh Gupta, for Petitioner R.S. Agarwal, Public Prosecutor Put up on 17.5.94. In the mean time the learned Public Prosecutor is directed to comply with the order dated 21.4.94 by filing an affidavit of Shri Janardan Sharma. If Mr. Janardan Sharma does not file the affi- davit as directed, this Court shall initiate contempt proceeding against him. The learned Public Prosecutor shall also intimate as to when the investigation was transferred last time and at whose request. He shall also inform this Court whether there are certain norms for transferring the investigation or they are transferred on mere as- king by any of the parties. Put up on 17.5.94 (9). Thereafter on 18.5.94, Shri Janardan Sharma, filed his affidavit. Paras No. 4 and 5 of the affidavit-are relevant, and the same are reproduced as under :– ``4. That by order of Inspector General of Police Crime and Vigilance, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide No. 60475 dated 16.7.93, I was appointed as Investigation Officer in this case. In compliance of the said order, I conducted the investigation of the case and submitted a factual report on the basis of the evidence present on file on 16.11.1993. 5. That on 21.3.1994 I received the order of Superintendent of Police-I, CID (CB), Rajasthan, Jaipur No. 1264 dated 18.3.1994, Case Diary Number-78 dated 21.3.1994 has been written about it, later on file was with the Senior officers for the perusal and later on Superintendent of Police Sikar has been appointed as the Investigation Officer in this case by the Order of Additional Director General of Police, Crime and Vigilance, Rajasthan, Jaipur and now the Investigation is with the Superintendent of Police, Sikar. (10). (10). Before passing any order in the matter, the important contention urged by the learned Public prosecutor may be examined that all questions relating to the investigation of a cognizable offence should be left with the State Government or its functionaries and it is for them to decide that by whom and which agency the investigation should be made. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, though there are no guidelines or executive instructions to regulate for withdrawing or transferring an investigation from one officer or agency to another, but the executive has unfettered power in the matter and take its own decision till the investiga- tion is completed and the result is submitted in the Court. In other words, Judiciary does not come in picture till a charge-sheet is filed in the Court. (11). Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the investigation by the police and their powers to investigate. On registration of a Crime/First Information Report (FIR) relating to commission of a cognizable offence, the police gets power to investigate the matter without requiring any authority from the judiciary. Investigation into the circumstances of a cognizable crime and collection of evidence for the purposes of proving the offence is basically the field and domain of the Executive through its Police Department. It is true that there is a clear cut and well defined sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime puni- shment. The Executive, which is charged with the duty to keep vigilance over the law and order situation, is liable to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed, then, it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. The Courts functions begin of filing the charge sheet on completion of investigation and not until then. But it does not mean that investigation is completely immune from a judicial review even though the work of investigation is carried out unfairly or with ulterior motive. The courts are always concerned for the personal liberty of a citizen and as such, it is all the more important that investigation into criminal offences must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities or non-observances of any statutory procedure. (12). In S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors. The courts are always concerned for the personal liberty of a citizen and as such, it is all the more important that investigation into criminal offences must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities or non-observances of any statutory procedure. (12). In S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors. (1), while considering the argument, whether the judiciary can interfere during investigation of a cognizable offence by the police, their Lordships observed thus :– ``It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police, unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution under whi- ch, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer malafides, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers. (13). In State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Buha & Ors. (2), Chand- rachud, Chief Justice (as he then was) while examining the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence observed as follows:– ``There is no such thing like unfettered discretion in the realm of powers defined by statutes and indeed, un-limited discretion in that sphere can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom. The po- wer to investigate into cognizable offence must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by Code. (14). In State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. The po- wer to investigate into cognizable offence must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by Code. (14). In State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. (3), while dealing with the question, whether an investigation of a cognizable offence can be subject matter of a judicial review, the Supreme Court considered various provisions contained in Chapter-XII of the Code and made a survey of various judicial pronouncements on the subject and then it was observed thus : (para 66 PP 354-65 SCC) :– ```The sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officer whose powers in that field are unfette- red so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter-XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorized to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed li- mits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appro- priate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. It needs no emphasis that on one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable upto unfethomable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tentamount to recognition of `Divine Power which no authority on earth can enjoy. (15). It needs no emphasis that on one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable upto unfethomable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tentamount to recognition of `Divine Power which no authority on earth can enjoy. (15). From the discussion made hereinabove, the legal position on the question emerges that the police has a statutory right, as well as, a statutory duty to in- vestigate into the causes of a cognizable offence and collect evidence to bring the offender to book. It has also corresponding obligation to exercise the power of investigation properly, fairly and in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law. Ordinarily, the Courts should be reluctant in interfere with the investigation or to give direction to the police to proceed in a particular manner during investi- gation of a case. But, still the High Court, in exercise of extra-ordinary inherent jurisdiction, can give appropriate directions to the investigating agency for taking appropriate action to secure the ends of justice, where investigation is not being made properly, fairly or in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code, though, such power shall be used sparingly in deserving cases after taking into con- sideration the gravity of the injustice brought to its notice and non-availability of an effective remedy otherwise. In other words, the investigation agency does not have unbriddled power and can be subjected to judicial review in appropriate cases. (16). Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved, for the Executive through the Police Department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The State Government therefore, has power to withdraw investigation from any Police Officer or Investigating Agency to entrust it to any other agency or police officer. Exercise of such power by the State Government or its functionaries may some-times be necessary or rather imperative for investigation of a case by a more efficient and skilled police officer or better equipped Inves- tigating Agency in view of the gravity and sensitiveness of the crime. Exercise of such power may also be necessary in other cases for example, where investigation is not made properly and fairly by the Investigating agency and its transfer is necessary to maintain faith of the public in the system. Exercise of such power may also be necessary in other cases for example, where investigation is not made properly and fairly by the Investigating agency and its transfer is necessary to maintain faith of the public in the system. There is no quarrel if this power is exercised by the State Government or its functionaries with due care and caution keeping in view justice and fair play. (17). However, it is matter of common knowledge that transfer of investigation from one Police Officer or one agency to another, is often made by the State Government or its functionaries in arbitrary manner either under pressure or as a result of manoeuvreing by the interested party. Such frequent transfer is the rule of the day. This not only causes delay in the investigation, but faith of the people on police investigation is also shattered. On a pointed query, learned Public Prosecutor has candidly admitted that there are no guidelines or executive instruction to regulate transfer of investigations from the agency or police officer to another. For a fair and proper investigation in grave and serious offences, it should be made by one investigating agency and by one officer as far as practicable, unless there are allegation of malafids or misuse of power and it is found that fair and proper investigation is not being made. There is no dispute so far legal aspect is concerned that initially investigation of a case, registered at a particular Police Station, is to be done by the Investigating Officer of that very Policy Station i.e. by the local police of the area. The State Government or its functionaries, no doubt, can withdraw that investigation from the local police and entrust the same to any other Investigating Agency like CID (CB) or any other Police Officer. In order to check misuse of power, it is just and proper that the State Government or the Director General of Police should evolve broad guidelines and principles to regulated transfer of investigation from one hand to another. Such transfers should be permissible for good reasons to be recorded in the file by the competent authority exercising the power of transfer. If a proper system is evolved and transfer of investigation is made on some guidelines and principles, it would have a great check on frequent and arbitrary transfers which are obtained by manipulation or manoeuvreing by the interested parties. If a proper system is evolved and transfer of investigation is made on some guidelines and principles, it would have a great check on frequent and arbitrary transfers which are obtained by manipulation or manoeuvreing by the interested parties. It would also have a salutary effect in restoring public faith on police investigators. To give unbriddled power to the State Government of its functionaries in the matter, is always dangerous. (18). In light of the above discussion and the legal position enunciated, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which appropriate direction should be given to bring completion of investigation without any further delay. Ends of justice shall be met if the following directions are given in the facts and circumstances of the case:– (i) The Dy. Inspector General of Police (DIG) of the area shall perso- nally examine the file to decide whether investigation in the matter is complete or it requires further investigation on certain points. If he is of the opinion that investigation is complete, then a report (which may be by way of charge-sheet or a negative report) shall be submitted before the concerned Magistrate within four weeks from the date of receipt of the police diary; (ii) After considering the entire materials, if he is of the opinion that further investigation is required to be made on certain points, then he shall depute a senior Police Officer but not below the rank of Dy. S.P. to make further investigation only in relation to those points to be specified by him and this further investigation shall be completed under his supervision within a specified period, but in any case, not later than three months from the date of forwarding the case for further investigation. (iii) If arrest of any of the accused is necessary for further investiga- tion, the investigating agency shall not hesitate to arrest him. (iv) The investigation of the case shall not be further transferred to any other police officer or Investigating Agency by the State Government or any of its functionaries and it shall be completed under supervision of the DIG concerned. (v) The Public Prosecutor shall send the Police Diary of the case directly to the DIG concerned for doing the needful. (19). (v) The Public Prosecutor shall send the Police Diary of the case directly to the DIG concerned for doing the needful. (19). Before concluding the matter I feel my duty to bring into the notice of all concerned, including the State Government, that the duties of an investigator of a crime are of special nature. His services to the public are very important. He should possess abundant energy and initiative. On many occasions he has to utilize and display the ingenuity. He must know men and be eternally vigilant. His tact is indispensable for many awakward situations. Occasions also arise when his courage will be called to account as when tackling an armed criminal or a combination of two or more vicious suspects. Acquaintance with languages, dialects, `isms and `eulogies will be an asset to him. He should know what assistance a person in every profession, calling or trading can render to him in an investigation. Only by mixing with all classes at every opportunity, listening, intently to what they have to say, and retaining such knowledge, will he ever be able to call upon the right person at the right time to come to his aid as to the investigation work. The handling of modern anti social welfare offences are of great importance for preserving the social interest and general safety. It is high time to take steps that the process of investigation is entrusted by the Government to a separate skilled agency at all levels. The Police personnel entrusted with the task of investigation should normally continue with the same task. For law and order problem and other administrative duties, there should be a separate branch of the Police. The persons working in these two branches should not normally be transferred. I hope and trust that the authorities entrusted with the task will seriously consider in this direction for a proper, timely and skillful investigation. (20). A copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and Director General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of the Police, for follow-up action.