Judgment 1. This petition has been filed by the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.46/2008 on the file of Vennanthur Police Station, Namakkal District for a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C directing the third respondent to depute a competent officer to take over the investigation of the said case, who shall conduct an impartial investigation and submit a final report within a reasonable time. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vennanthur police station, who is the present Investigating officer of the above said case has filed a counter affidavit. The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Inspector of Police, Vennanthur Police Station and Inspector General of Police, CB-CID, Government Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai-2, who have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter. However, they are represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). 2. The submissions made by Mr. P. Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), representing the respondents were heard. The petition, counter affidavit filed by the present Investigating Officer and the documents produced on either side were also perused. 3. Pursuant to the unnatural death of his daughter Meenakshi on 25.01.2008, the petitioner herein lodged a complaint on the file of Vennanthur police station informing the police the following facts:- About 2½ years prior to the date of occurrence, Vijayan son of Natarajan residing in Sakkarai Thoppu, Vennanthur eloped with the above said Meenakshi and married her without the consent of the petitioner. As the marriage was solemnised in accordance with the caste custom, the petitioner, thereafter did not raise any objection. The deceased Meenakshi and her husband Vijayan used to pay visits to the house of the petitioner once in six months. On all such occasions, immediately after seeing her parents the said Meenakshi would be asked by her husband to leave that place and go with him. Four days prior to the occurrence, the husband of Meenakshi took her to the house of the petitioner and left after leaving her there. On 24.01.2008 when the petitioner had gone to temple, the husband of Meenakshi took her from the house of the petitioner. Four days prior to the occurrence, the husband of Meenakshi took her to the house of the petitioner and left after leaving her there. On 24.01.2008 when the petitioner had gone to temple, the husband of Meenakshi took her from the house of the petitioner. The very next day, that is on 25.01.2008, at about 7.00 a.m. he was informed over phone that his daughter Meenakshis dead body was floating in a well and that at about 9.00 a.m. the petitioner went there and saw the dead body of his daughter Meenakshi floating in the well in Sakkarai Thoppu, Vennanthur. 4. Based on the said information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vennanthur registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Since the death had occurred within 7 years after the marriage, the investigation of the case was taken up by the jurisdictional sub-divisional officer, namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police. As per the averments found in the counter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted inquest and the investigation, after recording the statements of the witnesses including the petitioner, his wife, petitioners mother, petitioners son, petitioners daughter and other mahazar witnesses, altered the case into a case for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and handed over further investigation of the case to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vennanthur. It has also been stated in the counter statement that an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Namakkal. The petitioner has produced the following documents. i) Copy of the first information report; ii) a copy of letter addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, namely on 20.02.2008; iii) a copy of the petition dated 07.05.2008 addressed to Revenue Divisional Officer; iv) copy of another petition dated 20.05.2008 addressed to Revenue Divisional Officer; v) copy of another letter addressed to Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal dated 011. 2008; vi) a petition dated 211. 2008 submitted to the designated officer under the Right to Information Act of the Revenue Divisional Officer; vii) a copy of the certificate issued by the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government M.K. Medical College Hospital, Salem reserving opinion regarding the case of death pending receipt of Chemical Analysis Report; and viii) the postal documents evidencing the fact that the said petitions were sent to the respective officers. A perusal of the said documents produced by the petitioner is capable of showing that there had been systematic improvement made by the petitioner from the complaint which was the basis of the first information report to the latest complaint given to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. However, in the counter affidavit it has been stated that statements have been given by the witnesses to the effect that the husband of the deceased demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and that the witnesses examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police corroborate the statement of the petitioner. The first Investigating Officer, namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police seems to have arrived at a conclusion that the death was a suicide that is why the Deputy Superintendent of Police has chosen to alter the case to one for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC as stated in the counter. When he has arrived at such a conclusion, then the Deputy Superintendent of Police should have either altered the case for an offence under Section 304-B IPC in the light of the statements of the witnesses that there had been demand of dowry or continued the investigation and submitted a final report and should not have handed over further investigation of the case to the Sub-Inspector of police. Though the respondents have submitted that they are awaiting the experts report from the Forensic Science Lab, Coimbatore for completing the investigation and laying a final report, this court is of the view that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was the first Investigating Officer of the case, should not have altered the case for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and handed over further investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police and that he himself should have continued the investigation either after altering the case for an offence under Section 304-B IPC or without such alteration till the completion of the investigation. 6. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case in which the investigation of the case has to be transferred from the present Investigating officer and entrusted to an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 7. 6. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case in which the investigation of the case has to be transferred from the present Investigating officer and entrusted to an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed and the third respondent herein is directed to nominate within a week, an officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who shall conduct further investigation of the case in accordance with law and submit a final report at an early date. The present Investigating Officer, namely the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vennanthur Police Station shall hand over the case diary file to the officer thus nominated by the third respondent to conduct further investigation of the above said case.