JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - Petitioners seek to quash the order of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack, dated 24.1.1991 in U.D. Case No. 205 of 1984 directing Central Bureau of Investigation to take up further and thorough investigation of the above mentioned U.D. Case in exercise of power under Section, 173 (8), Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'the Code') on the ground that the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction, authority and power to pass such a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is contended that it is only the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass such a direction in appropriate cases. 2. It has been contended that the findings of the learned Magistrate that the investigation was done in a partisan manner and with a view to cover up the truth are arbitrary and biased. It has been further contended that there was no material on record before the learned Magistrate to establish that the investigation was perfunctory. 3. It has also been contended that with the passage of time much of the evidence is either lost, destroyed, obliterated and as such, it would be an exercise in futility if the order directing further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation is allowed to stand. 4. The facts leading to the filing of this case may be summarised as follows: The deceased Amita Patnaik alias Mami was given in marriage to Subhendu Patnaik, the only son of petitioners on 22nd April, 1984. At the time of marriage, Amita was only 25 years old. She sustained severe burn injuries while residing at her matrimonial home on 14.8.1984 at about 2.30 p.m. She was removed to S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack for treatment. There she expired at about 11.20 p.m. On receipt of casualty memo No. 522 dated 14/15.8.1984 from the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital at 12.15 a.m. of 15.8.1984 reporting the death of deceased Amita Patnaik on account of burn injuries, U.D.Case No.205 of 1984 dated 15.8.1984 was registered at the Mangalabag police-station. The said U.D. Case was allegedly thoroughly investigated by police and after completion of investigation, final report dated 18.5.1985 was filed. The said U.D. Case was allegedly thoroughly investigated by police and after completion of investigation, final report dated 18.5.1985 was filed. On 12.6.1985, the mother of the deceased, viz., opposite party No.7 filed writ application No. 1175 of 1985 with a prayer to direct the C.B.I. to take-up investigation, making various allegations and insinuations against the present petitioners and their daughter Smt. Nandini Patnaik. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 11.12.1985 with certain directions. 5. Again on 8.6.1986 the mother of the deceased filed another writ petition bearing No. 2198 of 1986 praying for quashing the final report and for directing the C.B.I. to take up investigation. 6. By judgment dated 17.10.1990 this writ petition was disposed of also with certain directions. Thereafter, on hearing the Advocate of the opposite parties 6 and 7, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 24.1.1991 directed the C.B.I. to make further and thorough investigation of the case. This order is under challenge now. It is contended that the finding of the learned Magistrate that the investigating agency acted in a partisan way is without any basis. Heard learned counsel on behalf of all the parties including the Central Bureau of Investigation. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate is not competent to direct investigation by the C.B.I. He submits that the Magistrate has not been vested with such power. He submits also that only the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, can pass such an order in appropriate cases. He contends that the impugned order is, therefore, wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. He submits that under Section 156 of the Code, the police have a statutory right to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence without requiring any authority from a Magistrate. Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code may order such an investigation as above mentioned. He has also drawn my attention to the definition of words "Officer-in-charge of a police station" and 'Police-station' occurring in Section 2 of the Code. Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code may order such an investigation as above mentioned. He has also drawn my attention to the definition of words "Officer-in-charge of a police station" and 'Police-station' occurring in Section 2 of the Code. He goes on to contend that only the Officer-in-charge of a police-station can investigate a cognizable offence and the C.B.I is not vested with such power without any authority from High Court or Supreme Court. It is also contended that under Section 173 (8) of the Code, the Magistrate may call for further report from the Investigating Officer and this does not vest the Magistrate with the power to direct inquiry by the C.B.I. Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. joins issue. He submits that the investigation into a cognizable offence lies within the domain of the Officer-in-charge of a police-station and so the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 6 and 7 could not cite any provision of law or any authority to show that under Section 173-(8) of the Code, the Magistrate can direct any such investigation by the C.B.I. Section 173 makes it clear that the duty of making a report thereunder on completion of investigation to the Magistrate is that of the Officer-in-charge of the Police-station. Such a report shall include the opinion of the Police Officer as to the result of the investigation and the formation of such opinion is the final step in the investigation and that final step is to be taken by the Police, Officer-in-charge of the police-station and by no other authority. In view of this position of law, the impugned order of the S.D.J.M. cannot be regarded as legal and as such, it cannot be sustained. 8. Faced with the situation, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 6 and 7 submits that the S.D.J.M. passed the impugned order in pursuance of and on the authority of the order of this Court in O.J.C.No. 2198 of 1996. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to the operative part of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2198 of 1986. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to the operative part of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2198 of 1986. It would be relevant to extract the operative part of the order of this Court: "In the result, the petition is allowed by directing the Police to submit the final report before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, who after receipt of the report, shall notice the petitioner and the prosecution and shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law. If during the course of the proceeding before the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate any prayer would be made for further probe into the death by the Central Bureau of Investigation, he would pass such orders in this regard as permitted by law. As the matter has already become old, let the report be forwarded to the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack within a period of ten days form today and let the learned Magistrate dispose of the matter as indicated within three months of submission of report to him." 9. It appears that this Court was pleased to observe that if during the course of the proceeding before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate any prayer would be made for further probe into the death by the Central Bureau of Investigation, then the Magistrate would pass such orders in this regard as permitted by law (underline is mine). A plain reading of this operative part of the order would clearly indicate that this Court did not pass an order p directing the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate to direct further probe into the matter by the C.B.I. Rather it left it to the Magistrate to pass such order in this regard as is permitted by law. I We have already noticed that under the law, the Magistrate is not empowered to pass such a direction to the C.B.I. So the contention raised by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 does not stand scrutiny. Therefore, I feel no hesitation to reject it. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the findings of the learned Magistrate are based on no record and rather contrary to record and also biased. 6 and 7 does not stand scrutiny. Therefore, I feel no hesitation to reject it. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the findings of the learned Magistrate are based on no record and rather contrary to record and also biased. It appears that the learned Magistrate before directing further investigation by the C.B.I. has listed several irregularities and infirmities in the matter of investigation by the police. The Magistrate was of opinion that so many questions are still to be answered which suggest that the police has left many stones unturned. He held that the Police Agency has acted in a partisan way and in slip-shod manner leaving so many doubtful circumstances unanswered. Accordingly, he thought it fit to direct investigation by an independent agency like the C.B.I. In this connection, it may be remembered that it is certainly not for this Court at the present stage to examine and come to a conclusion as to whether this was a case of suicide or murder. If as a result of investigation, evidence is gathered and a trial takes place, the Court will decide that controversy. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to enter into such a question now. We are seized of the matter as to whether the direction given by the learned Magistrate to the C.B.I. to make further and thorough investigation is proper or not. I have already indicated in the earlier part of the judgment that the learned Magistrate lacked such power and as such the impugned order was wholly illegal. 11. It is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the C.B.I. to make further and thorough investigation in appropriate cases. The question that requires determination by this Court is whether investigation by the C.B.I is to be ordered to get at the truth of the allegations. The deceased Amita was only 23 years old. She was married to Subhendu Patnaik, the only son of the petitioners on 22.4.1984. Within a period of four months she sustained severe burn injuries while residing at her matrimonial home on 14.8.1984 at about 2.30 P.M. resulting in her death soon after her admission in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital. Opposite parties 6 and 7 are the parents of the deceased Amita. Within a period of four months she sustained severe burn injuries while residing at her matrimonial home on 14.8.1984 at about 2.30 P.M. resulting in her death soon after her admission in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital. Opposite parties 6 and 7 are the parents of the deceased Amita. Opposite Party No. 6, the father of the deceased Amita lodged a report at Mangalabag police-station at 0.55 A.M. on 15.8.1984 reporting the death of the deceased and suspecting foul play in the matter. Therefore, the mother of the deceased (O.P.No. 7) filed two writ petitions before this Court making allegations of partisanship and bias on the part of the investigating agency. They are crying for justice for so many years. As noticed earlier, the learned Magistrate referring to a number of circumstances, observed that the investigation was done in a partisan and slip-shod manner leaving so many doubtful circumstances unanswered. It is noticed also that series of allegations have been levelled against the local police administration. Opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 being the parents of the deceased are entitled to know the circumstances under which their daughter met with the tragic death and within a few months of the marriage specially when the incident occurred at the matrimonial home of the deceased. They are crying for justice for so many years. Therefore, in order to get at the truth of the incident, it is necessary that the investigation should be entrusted to an independent agency like the C.B.I. so that the parents of the deceased including their relatives may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lead the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However, faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are made against them. It is only with that in mind that I have thought it both advisable and desirable as Well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are made against them. It is only with that in mind that I have thought it both advisable and desirable as Well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that with the passage of time much of the evidence is either lost, destroyed or obliterated and it would be an exercise in futility and gross abuse of the process of law to order further investigation by the C.B.I. It is of course true that the incident happened in August, 1984 and the impugned order was passed on 24.1.1991. Thereafter, the revision application was filed on 8.3.1991. The impugned order was stayed by this Court on 21.3.1991. Since then the matter could not be heard by this Court for some reason or other. It is unfortunate that an important matter like this, remained pending for so long before this Court. Be that as it may, the question of delay in the matter of investigation should not detain us further specially in view of the fact that it is necessary to get at the truth of the matter. The interest of justice and fair play demand that the truth should be unfolded. Therefore, I direct the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhubaneswar to take up investigation and submit report in final form on completion of investigation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order may be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. fothwith. All papers relating to this case may be handed over to the C.B.I. In passing such an order, I mean no reflection on the credibility of the local police as I have been guided by the larger requirement of justice. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Of