D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the G. P. for Home. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed for a direction to make over P. R. C. No. 27/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, huzurnagar in Crime No. 64/2001 of nareduherla Police Station dated 6-6-2001 to crime Branch, Central Intelligence department (CB-CID) 4th respondent herein for further investigation under Sec. 173 (8) of cr. P. C. on correct lines and also appoint a special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the case. ( 3 ) THE brief facts are that the writ petitioner is the father of the deceased. The deceased was married to the accused about seven years prior to her death. There were differences between the deceased and her accused husband (A-7) on various grounds. It is urged that many a time conciliations were also conducted, but in spite of which, the accused who is A-7 and his brother A-8, did not mend themselves and subsequently it appears that the deceased died under suspicious circumstances. ( 4 ) THE prime grievance of the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased, is that the investigation conducted by the prosecution was not in proper lines and the charge-sheet was filed within 21 days with utmost haste. ( 5 ) IT appears that when the deceased died due to burn injuries, the same was immediately informed to her maternal uncle and he in turn reported the matter to the police and his statement was recorded and treated as F. I. R. On the next day, the father of the deceased who was at Tirupathi on pilgrimage, having come to know about the incident came to her daughter s place. It is his grievance that the investigation was going in a wrong direction. According to him the investigation was completed within a span of 21 days and the statements of different individuals were recorded, but his statement was not recorded. ( 6 ) BUT from a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. is very much available. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though the statement of the petitioner was recorded, it did not contain the true statement made by the petitioner. ( 6 ) BUT from a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. is very much available. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though the statement of the petitioner was recorded, it did not contain the true statement made by the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that suspecting that the death of the petitioner was homicidal, the petitioner made a representation to the D. I. G. on 27-6-2000 and also to the Home Secretary and since there was no response, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking handing over of the investigation to the C. B. C. I. D. ( 8 ) IT is brought to the notice of this Court that after filing of the writ petition, this court passed an interim order dated 1-10-2001 directing that the body of the deceased be exhumed and sent for post-mortem examination by a Pathologist of the Osmania or Gandhi General Hospitals, Hyderabad and in compliance of the directions of this court, post-mortem for the second time was conducted and report was filed. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are many reasons for the petitioner to contend that the investigation was conducted on wrong lines. He stated that the deceased died homicidal death and not suicidal death and, therefore, according to him a charge under Section 302 i. P. C. should have been framed instead of a charge under Section 306 I. P. C. According to him no material has been seized by the investigating Officer during the course of investigation at the scene of offence, but the fact remains that the investigation was completed and the statements under Sec. 161 cr. P. C. were recorded and made part of the record. ( 10 ) BUT it is to be seen that after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Magistrate and basing on the material made available, appropriate charges were framed and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same is pending for trial. ( 11 ) IT is to be noted that on 27-6-2001 the petitioner made a representation to the d. I. G. and also to the Home Secretary complaining that the investigation is not going in correct lines. ( 11 ) IT is to be noted that on 27-6-2001 the petitioner made a representation to the d. I. G. and also to the Home Secretary complaining that the investigation is not going in correct lines. On the very same day i. e. , on 27-6-2001, incidentally the charge- sheet was filed before the Magistrate and the lack of knowledge to the petitioner with regard to this aspect cannot totally be believed. At the outset the conduct of the petitioner appears to be somewhat doubtful. However, this comment need not be understood as opinion expressed on the merits of the case. ( 12 ) IT is to be noted that if the petitioner has strong belief that his daughter died of homicidal death and that her husband A-7 is the culprit and if he has belief that the investigation was conducted by the police in hasty manner, he could and should have approached the Magistrate invoking Sec. 200 cr. P. C. This he did not do. Instead of taking recourse under law, curiously the petitioner approached the higher officials of the investigating agency and also the Home secretary and incidentally the charge-sheet was filed on the very same day i. e. , on the date of his representation. ( 13 ) THE counsel for the petitioner contended that in the second post-mortem certificate it is noted that there is a hole in the skull width of 8" x 6" but the same was absent in the first port-mortem certificate. It is to be noted that when the competent doctors explain the reason and its purpose, it is not for the petitioner to contend that it was an injury. The second post-mortem reveals that there are no ante-mortem injuries on the skull. Just because a hole is found on the skull, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that the said hole was an injury, particularly when it was explained by the competent doctors, who conducted the post-mortem examination for the second time. Therefore, in my considered view, there is absolutely no discrepancy as regards the injury on the head, as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, either in the first post-mortem report or in the second post-mortem report. Hence, this submission of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. Therefore, in my considered view, there is absolutely no discrepancy as regards the injury on the head, as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, either in the first post-mortem report or in the second post-mortem report. Hence, this submission of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the deceased would not have died without any shrieks, particularly when she died due to burns and this fact is not recorded anywhere. This in my view cannot be a subject matter of the writ petition, in view of the nature of the relief sought in this writ petition and the same has to be decided during trial. ( 15 ) AS already pointed out the petitioner approached the higher authorities on the same day when the charge-sheet was filed and by the time he approached this Court the charge-sheet had already been filed and the matter has been committed to the Court of Session and the same is pending trial. Just because some allegations are made against the investigating agency, though some times might be true, it is not always desirable for this Court to interfere with the process of investigation. The petitioner cannot always require the investigation to be conducted in the manner in which he wanted. It is for the investigating agency to investigate into the case with due diligence in accordance with law. Further it is also not possible for this court to come to the conclusion that the investigation has not been done properly, particularly when there is no real and valid reason. Just because the petitioner believes that there are lacunae or deficiencies in the process of investigation, that does not by itself be a cause for seeking investigation be conducted by an agency like CB CID, particularly when investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed and the petitioner has knowledge of this fact. ( 16 ) MERE apprehension cannot be a valid reason for this Court to grant any relief as sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly for the foregoing reasons, I pass the order as under: the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.