JUDGMENT 1. - Through this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks the transfer of the investigation of F.I.R. No. 61/98 RS. Peelwa to C.I.D. (C.B.) Jaipur or C.I.D. New Delhi. 2. The petitioner's case is that Binja Ram and five other accused persons had administered poison to Ram Niwas deceased but as Binja Ram is Sarpanch of Village Bharsiya and politically sound person, he is influencing the investigation. It is stated that the accused persons are moneyed persons and, therefore fair investigation is not being done by the police. 3. The short facts of the case are that one Ram Niwas died of poison in suspicious circumstances in the night intervening 13/14.5.98. A complaint was filed by Rameshwari against Binja Ram and five others alleging that Ram Niwas was the son of her sister and he lived with her and he was taken away by the accused persons from her house and was beaten and poison was administered to him. This complaint was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where case No. 65 was registered. The police is investigating the matter. 4. Mr. Joshi contends that fair investigation is not being conducted in the case as Binja Ram is influential person. He points out that after the occurrence even Rameshwari and Jugani Devi have been beaten for which cases have been registered against the ladies of the accused persons. Relying on the cases of Gudalaure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, 1992(1) Crimes 2 , Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi, 1997 Cr.L.J. 358 and Jai Bhagwan Singh v. State, 1996 RCC 306 , he submits that the investigation be transferred to some independent agency. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, points out that proper investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer and the delay, if any, in the investigation has taken place it is because of the receipt of the F.S.L. report only two days back. His further submission is that the transfer of the investigation will further delay the investigation of the case. He canvassed that no-one has a right of investigation by the agency of his choice. 6. I have considered the above arguments. The case was registered on 1.7.98. The investigation is almost complete. The reports from the F.S.L. has .not been received and, therefore, the police report could not be produced before the Magistrate. He canvassed that no-one has a right of investigation by the agency of his choice. 6. I have considered the above arguments. The case was registered on 1.7.98. The investigation is almost complete. The reports from the F.S.L. has .not been received and, therefore, the police report could not be produced before the Magistrate. On going through the case-diary, it is not borne out that there is interference in the investigation by some external agency. All the witnesses who are being referred to by Mr. Joshi have been interrogated by the police and their statements are available on the file. Even the affidavit filed by Purki Devi is also on record. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the police is not fair and is helping the accused persons. Simply because the accused persons have not been arrested as yet, it cannot be said that the investigation is not on the right direction. The matter rests on the circumstantial evidence only and some time was bound to be taken by the police in completing the investigation before arresting the accused persons. 7. If at this stage the investigation is transferred to some other agency, it will further delay the matter. If the first informant is not satisfied with the result of the investigation she has ample opportunity to make submissions before the Magistrate concerned before whom the police report is submitted. 8. In the case of Gudalaure (supra), relied on by Mr. Joshi, it has been observed that to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind, it may become necessary to ask the specialised agency to investigate a crime. At the same time, it has been observed that the investigation having been completed by the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this Court, ordinarily, to re-open the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency. In the instant case, it will be for the Magistrate to consider the police report and pass appropriate order. It is not proper for this Court to express any opinion in the matter.The case of Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi (supra) pertains to the Fodder Scam of Patna. In the instant case, it will be for the Magistrate to consider the police report and pass appropriate order. It is not proper for this Court to express any opinion in the matter.The case of Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi (supra) pertains to the Fodder Scam of Patna. It has been directed in this case that the C.B.I. would investigate the matter under the over all control of the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court or the Bench constituted by the Chief Justice. This judgment does not lay down that a case should always be transferred to the agency other than the ordinary police. It may be that in that case investigation was done by the C.B.I. but on that ground investigation cannot be transferred to C.B.I. in this case.The case of Jai Bhagwan (supra) does not been help the petitioner in any manner. That was a case under section 302 IPC in which, and investigation could not be completed for more than four years under section 302 IPC and the investigation became rolling stone by making frequent changes of the investigating agency. This practice was deprecated by this Court. In the instant case the investigation is almost complete and it has also not taken abnormal time. 9. There is no cause for apprehension in the mind of the complainant-petitioner that as one of the accused is Sarpanch, he would influence the investigation. In any case, the ultimate authority is the Magistrate where the petitioner can file protest petition in the event of filing final report by the police. 10. No case of transfer of investigation is made out. The petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******