JUDGMENT I.M. QUDDUSI, J. — By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ to the opposite parties to cause an investiga¬tion into the alleged murder of the son of the informant by an impartial investigating agency other than the local police. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his second son, namely, Ranjan who was employed in a Plant at Jajpur Road had married to one Pranati Nayak @ Sati daughter of Akshila Nayak of village Khandatiri under Rasol police station on 26.4.2007. After the marriage Pranati was taken to her paternal home by the elder brother of his father namely Purna Chandra Nayak on 2.5.2007 for the purpose of Saptamangala and she came back to her marital home on 4.5.2007. Purna Chandra Nayak owns a Tractor and the neighbour of the petitioner namely Jagabandhu Biswal had brought the said Tractor on hire for ploughing his land on 5.5.2007. The driver of the Tractor and two other persons who had come along with the Tractor being the employees of her father’s elder brother and known to Pranati, visited the house of the petitioner and gos¬siped with Pranati and Ranjan in the night of 5.5.2007 and as the humidity was very high, they along with Ranjan went out to cool off. As Ranjan did not return in the night, the family members became panic stricken and on the next morning, i.e., 6.5.2007, the petitioner along with his brothers moved around in search of Ranjan but could neither trace out Ranjan nor the tractor driver or his two associates. Later few young villagers, namely, Kuna, Hemanta and Dipu informed the petitioner that Ranjan was lying in stone cave of Budhinali motionless and did not respond. Imme¬diately the petitioner followed by few villagers rushed to the spot which was at a distance of about more than one and half kilometre from his house and when Ranjan did not respond to their call, local Baidya namely Mahuli Sahoo was called to the spot who after checking the pulse of Ranjan declared him dead. Imme¬diately the petitioner followed by few villagers rushed to the spot which was at a distance of about more than one and half kilometre from his house and when Ranjan did not respond to their call, local Baidya namely Mahuli Sahoo was called to the spot who after checking the pulse of Ranjan declared him dead. In the meantime at about 8 a.m. on 6.5.2007 the parents and other rela¬tions of Pranati including Purna Nayak arrived at the house of the petitioner though the petitioner had not sent any intimation to them and without showing any reaction to what had happened suggested to the petitioner to give one share to her. They did not show any interest to trace out Ranjan. At this the petitioner suspected that the tractor driver and his two associates in connivance with the parents of Pranati must have murdered Ranjan and decided to report the matter at the police station. While the petitioner was going to police station, he was obstructed by Akshila, Purna and Sudha who lying at the feet of the petitioner requested him not to lodge any report at the police station as in that case there would be post-mortem of the dead body. The peti¬tioner being swayed away by their request, did not report the matter at the police station and agreed for cremation. It is alleged by the petitioner that Purna, Sudha and Akshila did not go to the cremation ground and on their advice Pranati, her mother and other female relations collected the gold ornaments and cash of about ninety thousand rupees from the room of Ranjan and Pranati went to her parental home with her relations without accepting the tradition of widowhood. Neither Pranati nor any of her relations participated in the customary ceremonies nor visit¬ed Haripur. On 5.6.2007, Akshila and Sudha along with other fifteen persons came to petitioner’s house armed with weapon and threatened the petitioner to pay rupees five lakhs to solemnize the second marriage of Pranati with her chosen person before the date fixed failing which the same fate would be fall on him. When the petitioner expressed his inability to pay stating that they have already taken about rupees ninety thousand from the Almirah of Ranjan on 6.5.2007, they became furious and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. When the petitioner expressed his inability to pay stating that they have already taken about rupees ninety thousand from the Almirah of Ranjan on 6.5.2007, they became furious and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner and his family members apprehending danger to their lives and property reported the matter at the local police station on 10.6.2007 but the police refused to receive the same. He also submitted the FIR in the P.S. on the next day but the same was not accepted. So the petitioner sent the FIR to O.P.No.1 by registered post with a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal-opposite party No.2 but the same returned to the petitioner with postal endorse¬ment “addressee refused, returned to sender”. It is alleged by the petitioner that the accused persons are highly influential persons and they have connived with the staff of the local police station to hush up the murder of his son. He therefore prayed this Court for a direction to opposite parties 2 and 3 to get the matter investigated by the Crime Branch. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 sworn to by the Officer-in-charge of Rasol Police Station. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that no oral or written information regarding the murder of the son of the petitioner or for giving protection to the lives and proper¬ties of the petitioner and his family was received in Rasol police station. It is further stated that nether the petitioner lodged any FIR or complaint regarding the death of his son in Rasol P.S. on 10.6.2007 nor any FIR sent by the petitioner through registered post on that date was ever received in the said P.S. The further case of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that no postal communication relating to the murder of the son of the petitioner was offered or reached opposite party No.1. The alle¬gation made by the petitioner that the Officer-in-charge of Rasol P.S. refused to receive the FIR sent by the petitioner through registered post has been stoutly denied. Therefore, in the ab¬sence of any FIR or intimation to the police, there was no scope for opposite party No.1 to investigate into the matter. It is the case of the opposite parties that Ranjan Biswal, the son of the petitioner had married to one Pranati Nayak on 26.4.2007. Therefore, in the ab¬sence of any FIR or intimation to the police, there was no scope for opposite party No.1 to investigate into the matter. It is the case of the opposite parties that Ranjan Biswal, the son of the petitioner had married to one Pranati Nayak on 26.4.2007. At the time of marriage as per demand of the petitioner, the father of Pranati had given cash of Rs.40,000.00 and other household arti¬cles. When the petitioner and other family members demanded more dowry, Ranjan protested as a result of which the petitioner abused and insulted him by using unparliamentary words. As the insult was unbearable, Ranjan committed suicide near Badajor Nala on 6.5.2007 morning by consuming poison due to the insult meted out to him by the petitioner. After the death of Ranjan, the petitioner and his family members hurriedly disposed of the dead body by setting fire in the Badajor Nala and did not lodge any information at the P.S. When Pranati and her family members re¬quested the petitioner return the dowry given, the petitioner denied to return the same. So Pranati filed C.T. Case No.190 of 2007 which refers to Rasol P.S. Case No.50 of 2007 on 5.6.2007 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Hindol P.S. against the petitioner and his family members. When the petitioner came to know about this case, he and his family members absconded. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that during investigation of the aforesaid case, it has been well proved that Ranjan Biswal has committed suicide by consuming poison being insulted by the petitioner and no body has committed the murder of Ranjan Biswal. 4. This case involves the death of a recently married young man. According to the petitioner, it is a case of murder whereas the stand of the police in the counter affidavit is that this is a case of suicide due to the insult meted out by his father. Irrespective of whether, it is a case of murder or abet¬ting the commission of suicide, both are cognizable offences. 5. It appears from the counter affidavit that Rasol P.S. is at a distance of eight kilo metres from the village of the petitioner. There must have been Grama Rakhi in the village in question. It was his duty to report the matter and commission of offence within the village to the police station. 5. It appears from the counter affidavit that Rasol P.S. is at a distance of eight kilo metres from the village of the petitioner. There must have been Grama Rakhi in the village in question. It was his duty to report the matter and commission of offence within the village to the police station. The incident might have created hue and cry in the locality. In such circum¬stances, it is difficult to believe that the police had no infor¬mation. It is the case of the opposite parties that soon after the death of Ranjan Biswal, Pranati, the wife of the deceased, went back to her father’s house at village Khandatiri. Such conduct is unbecoming of the conduct of a Hindu widow,. There¬fore, the allegation of the petitioner that after the death of his son, the daughter in law went to her parental home gets corroboration. If her husband committed suicide by consuming poison on being insulted by his father, she should not have kept mum and should have informed the matter to the police so as to punish the offender who was responsible for ruining her married life. Therefore, the case needs a thorough probe. More shocking is the fact that Pranati with her father and others came to the house of Sanyasi on 10.5.2007, i.e. four days after the death of Ranjan and requested the petitioner to return the house hold articles along with cash of Rs.40,000.00 which were given at the time of marriage. if it was so, they could have informed the matter at the P.S. immediately but that was not done and the C.T. case was filed on 5.6.2007. No explanation has been furnished as to why Pranati waited till 5.6.2007 to lodge the complaint. No doubt the petitioner did not lodge information at the police station immediately after the death of his son and suppressed a heinous offence. Therefore, his conduct also comes under scanner. It appears from Annexure-2, that Registered Letter No.3446 dated 11.6.2007 addressed to Officer-in-Charge of Rasol Police Station was returned to the sender, i.e, the petitioner as the addressee refused to accept the same. The registration receipt No.3446 dated 11.6.2007 of Hindol P.S. shows that the said letter was addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Rasol Police Station. Therefore, the averment in the counter affidavit that no postal communication was ever offered/reached opposite party No.1 is difficult to believe. The registration receipt No.3446 dated 11.6.2007 of Hindol P.S. shows that the said letter was addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Rasol Police Station. Therefore, the averment in the counter affidavit that no postal communication was ever offered/reached opposite party No.1 is difficult to believe. In view of the fact that the petitioner has mentioned in the writ petition that he along with his brothers moved around in search of Ranjan but could not trace him out and few young villagers, namely, Kuna, Hemanta and Dipu informed the petitioner that Ranjan was lying in stone cave of Budhinali mo¬tionless and they called the local Baidya Mahuli Sahu who de¬clared Ranjan dead, it will be appropriate that the F.I.R. of the petitioner should be registered and investigation should be made by an independent agency. 6. We, therefore, direct that opposite party No.3 shall register the F.I.R. of the petitioner and entrust the investiga¬tion of the same to the C.I.D., C.B. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Copy of judgment be communicated to opposite party No.3 as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. SANJU PANDA, J. I agree. Petition allowed.