Judgment 1. In this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner was to issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to arrest the main accused named therein in the FIR which has not been done so far because or the political pressure excepted by named accused on the police high ups in spite of the collection of evidence by the police agency against them. 2. A FIR was lodged with Garhpura P.S. Case No. 15 of 2000 on 7.4.2000 on the unnatural death of the daughter of the petitioner in her sasural Besides in-laws being made accused in the case one Bhola Rai was also included as main accused in the case on the plea that he was the person who was inducing the in-laws of the deceased Gunjan Kumari to do away with he so that her husband could be married with the daughter of a rich family with more dowry. During the investigation of Garhpura P.S. Case No. 15/2000, it is stated that sufficient materials could be found against all the named accused-persons including Vijay and Bhola Rai but as they wee politically influenced persons they had put pressure on high officials of the Police as a result at one point of time an order has been obtained in not arresting the accused Vijay and Bhola Rai although such direction given was ultimately withdrawn. According to the petitioner on investigation and supervision sufficient materials were found against Bhola Rai also and although his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court. He has not been arrested by police nor any attempts were made to that effect. After filing of this writ petition Bhola Rai appeared and filed a petition to be added as a respondent in this case and by order dated 8.2.2001 a Bench of this Court allowed the same and Bhola Rai filed counter affidavit including the counter affidavit filed by the Police persons. 3. Although case has been registered as dowry death case but besides in-laws being arrayed including the husband of the deceased as accused-persons in the case Bhola Rai, Respondent No. 6 was also added as named accused as already mentioned above. It is the case of Bhola Rai that his name has been included by a known enemy of respondent No. 6 and at his instance practically this writ petition has also been filed. It is the case of Bhola Rai that his name has been included by a known enemy of respondent No. 6 and at his instance practically this writ petition has also been filed. It appears that the name of Bhola Rai had been added as named accused as during the life time Gunjan Kumari, she wrote two letters to her parents bringing allegations of inducement to torture her by in-laws. At a belated stage those two letters had been produced from the side cf the petitioner before the Investigating Agency. Bhola Rai appeared in the Court below along with vakalat- nama and filed a petition that those letters were not in the hands of Gunjan Kumari but by another person on Rajiv Kumar. That petition of Bhola Rai was sent to the Investigating Agency by the Chief Judicial Magistrate but then at the instance of the Police Agency one Rajiv Kumar was produced and his handwritings were taken in presence of C.J.M. but. then there was again allegation that the Rajiv Kumar, who was produced was not the real Rajiv Kumar in respect of whom information was made by respondent No. 6. Then another Rajiv Kumar was produced and a series of his handwritings were taken for the purpose of comparison of the handwritings in the alleged two letters of Gunjan Kumari. It was also suggested that Gunjan Kumari was an illiterate lady but from the prosecution side there was allegation that she read up to Middle Class and name of School etc., were also given but the Investigating Agency made queries in that School and doubts were created as to whether really she was a student of that school or not. Be it what it may the police is still investigating the handwriting of the letters alleged to be written by Gunjan Kumari by sending those letters along with the specimen writing of Rajiv Kumar and the report has not yet been received. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner that there was no scope of the accused to intervene in the investigation in the manner it has been done in the present case and because of his political clout he could make the investigation interfere at every stage though the high police officials. Definitely there is some substance in such submission. Definitely there is some substance in such submission. When it could be found that although the anticipatory bail petition had been rejected by this Court and on prima facie investigation before the letters in issue came attempts were made to arrest respondent No. 6 and another even processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr PC were also issued but then the matter took a different term when the matter of letters came in existence and the respondent No. 6 had also made allegation that those are concocted one being manufactured at the instance of his enemies. On the other hand it hag been submitted that the investigation agency has got unfettered right to investigate the case in all its pros and cons. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 6 had got any authority to direct or divert the investigation according to their choice. The objection raised as to the entertainment of the petition by respondent No. 6,\by the C.J.M. has been in aid to investigation in normal course. As the C.J.M. had never entered into any controversy rather for doing the investigation whatever papers have been brought to him, he had sent to the Investigation Agency. Considering all aspects of the matter as mentioned above, I do not find any direction in the form of writ of mandamus be issued by this Court on the Police persons rather it can be observed that the investigation had already taken much time and if at every point of time something is supplied by the accused-persons that should not be made to enquire into during the course of investigation rather those should be left for the purpose of judicial court to decide. When already investigation agency has taken the matter of letters in issue then the same should be concluded as expeditiously as possible and for that reason alone the matter of investigation should not be kept in abeyance. Even if besides the letters issue there is sufficient materials against all the named accused-persons. It has been stated in the bar that against the inlaws already charge-sheet has been submitted then the Investigating Agency must proceed as per the normal case without giving it a unique case as a person of political clout has been alleged to be involved in the crime. It has been stated in the bar that against the inlaws already charge-sheet has been submitted then the Investigating Agency must proceed as per the normal case without giving it a unique case as a person of political clout has been alleged to be involved in the crime. If for the purpose of investigation arrest is necessary the same should be done without any hesitation by the Investigating Agency and without creating any sort of pressure being given by any High Official in the matter. If processes have been issued under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr PC through Court then there is no scope of any high officials of the Police Agency to interfere with it. 5. This much can be observed that already much water had flown in the controversy in respect of the investigation with regard to Garhpura P.S. Case No, 15/2000, Final form as required under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be filed within a period of two months from this date after full investigation in respect of all the accused-persons in the case. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.