JUDGMENT A.P.LAVANDE, J. (1) Heard Mr. Anjan De, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. W. Sambre, learned P.P. for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. S. K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Sunil v. Manohar, learned amicus curiae. (2) Rule. With the consent of learned counsel the petition1 was taken up for final disposal. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. (3) By this petition the petitioners seek a direction that investigation in respect of the death of Yogita Thakre-minor daughter of the petitioners which has been registered as accidental case by respondent No. 1 be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation ("the C.B.I." for short). The petitioners have sought further direction that the C.B.I, be directed to submit report to this Court after investigation. (4) The grievance made by the petitioners in the present petition is that the unnatural death of Yogita the daughter of the petitioners on 19-5-2009 has,not been investigated by respondent No. 1 in a fair and impartial manner and, therefore, the investigation be handed over to C.B.I. Before adverting to, the submissions made by Mr. De, the learned counsel for the petitioners we deem it appropriate to mention briefly the investigation carried out by respondent No. 1 in the matter. On 19th May, 2009 the petitioner No. 2 lodged report to the Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur inter alia stating therein that he along with his wife Vimal - petitioner No.,1 was residing at Dasra Road, Mahal Nagpur and his wife was working as domestic servant. His daughter Yogita aged about 7 years was accompanying petitioner No. 1 and while petitioner No. 1 was working as domestic servant Yogita used to play in Gadkari Wada. On that day Yogita was found in a white vehicle (Honda CRV) bearing MH 31 DB 2727 the doors of which were locked. She was found dead inside the vehicle. At about 7 p.m. Yogita was examined by Dr. Paranjape who declared her dead. The petitioner No. 2 thereafter was called and he took the dead body of Yogita. Petitioner No. 2 lodged report to the Police Station, Kotwali Nagpur. After receipt of the report spot panchanama was drawn on 20th May, 2009 in the night at about 1.40 a.m. The vehicle bearing No. MH 31 DB 2727 was searched. Nothing incriminating was found in the vehicle. Petitioner No. 2 lodged report to the Police Station, Kotwali Nagpur. After receipt of the report spot panchanama was drawn on 20th May, 2009 in the night at about 1.40 a.m. The vehicle bearing No. MH 31 DB 2727 was searched. Nothing incriminating was found in the vehicle. Another vehicle bearing No. MH 31 CS 2727 (Fiat Linea) was also noticed on the spot. Accidental death was registered and the body was sent for postmortem. Inquest panchanama was conducted on 20th May, 2009. Death certificate was issued by Forensic Department under the signature of Dr. P. G. Dixit - Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nagpur who opined that cause of death was smothering and the opinion regarding forcible intercourse was reserved since the report of chemical analyser was not available. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis in 3 bottles. In the post-mortem report it was opined that death could be either homicidal or accidental. The Chemical Analyser report was received on 4th June, 2009. The Regional Forensic Science laboratory, Nagpur has opined that upon chemical analysis of the samples containing loop of intestine with its contents, pieces of liver, spleen, kidney, blood, poison was not detected. On the basis of the above report, the investigating officer referred the matter to the panel of Doctors of Forensic Laboratory consisting of Mr. P.G. Dixit, Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nagpur and Dr. T.M. Dahake for opinion. The panel, inter alia, opined that the death was caused within 12-24 hours of the post- mortem examination and death was about 34 hours after consumption of food. There was no evidence of forcible sexual intercourse but it was difficult to comment whether there was an attempt of sexual intercourse. Blood stains found over underwear, half top and slack were of Yogita. No semen was detected on vaginal swab, vaginal smear slide and vaginal secretion. No semen was detected on the half top, slack, janghiya. (5) DR. Sayara Marchant, Head of Unit of Paediatrics Department, Government Medical College, Nagpur whose opinion was sought opined that deceased Yogita was suffering from congenital heart disease (PDA with ASD with sub Acute bacterial Endocarditis). It was further opined that the nature of said disease was serious. No semen was detected on the half top, slack, janghiya. (5) DR. Sayara Marchant, Head of Unit of Paediatrics Department, Government Medical College, Nagpur whose opinion was sought opined that deceased Yogita was suffering from congenital heart disease (PDA with ASD with sub Acute bacterial Endocarditis). It was further opined that the nature of said disease was serious. However, she further opined that death of Yogita could not have occurred on account of suffocation in a car with door locked. (6) Initially the investigation was carried out on the basis of the claim made by the parents that the dead body was found in White Honda CRV Car bearing No. MH 31 DB 2727. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that investigation reveals that the body was found in Fiat Linea Car No. MH 31 CS 2727. According to respondent No. 1, this conclusion was reached on the basis of the statements of several witnesses recorded during the investigation and more particularly of Mrs. Gadkari who had gone to Ramtek along with the vehicle bearing No. MH 31 DB 2727. The regular driver of the vehicle Fiat Linea Car claimed that on the date of the incident he was on leave but he was not accustomed with the central locking system on regular basis. He claimed that in case one of the doors of the car was not completely closed the central locking system was unoperational. He also claimed that Mr. Manohar Panse who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time was not aware about the operation of the central locking system. Mr. Panse in his statement claimed that at about 7.30 p.m in the evening when he opened the door he found Ku. Yogita lying unconscious on the rear seat of the vehicle No. MH 31 CS 2727. He further stated that the central locking system of the said car was not functioning properly. The investigating agency checked the central locking system of the said car from Mr. Mahesh Rathi - Sales Manager, A. K. Gandhi Motors, Mr. Sagar Malvi - Sales Executive and Mr. Ashwin the Sales Executive of A. K. Gandhi Motors. They stated that the central locking system of the vehicle was not properly functioning and that there was some fault with the same. Mahesh Rathi - Sales Manager, A. K. Gandhi Motors, Mr. Sagar Malvi - Sales Executive and Mr. Ashwin the Sales Executive of A. K. Gandhi Motors. They stated that the central locking system of the vehicle was not properly functioning and that there was some fault with the same. The investigating officer sought opinion from the Regional Transport Office, Nagpur as regards the operation of central locking system. The Regional Transport Officer was of the opinion that the system was functioning properly. Subsequently, the locking system was tested at the police station and it was noticed that out of three attempts in two attempts the central locking system did not operate properly. The investigating agency, therefore, came to the conclusion that the central locking system was not properly functioning. It is further the case of respondent No. 1 that the samples of seat cover containing blood stains and other material like that of hair sample found on the seat of Fiat Lenia car were sent for chemical analysis and blood stains found on the seat tallied with that of Yogita. (7) After carrying out preliminary investigation, on 1-6-2009 P.I. R.M. Katole of Kotwali Police Station registered offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 90/09. In the course of investigation, the investigating agency recorded statements of several witnesses but has not been able to come to a definite conclusion as to whether death of Yogita was homicidal or accidental. However, according to respondent No. 1, the investigation is in progress and investigation is being carried out to find out whether the death of Yogita was homicidal or accidental. (8) The case of the petitioners, as set out in the petition, is that the investigation in the present case does not appear to be fair, impartial and credible and there is total laxity in the investigation and, therefore, this is a fit case in which investigation is required to be handed over to C.B.I.. According to Mr. De, the learned counsel for the petitioners the investigation is not fair and suspicious, inter alia, on the following grounds. a) Although the dead body of Yogita was found by driver Manohar Panse and she was declared dead by Dr. Paranjape no communication was sent by any one of them to police. According to Mr. De, the learned counsel for the petitioners the investigation is not fair and suspicious, inter alia, on the following grounds. a) Although the dead body of Yogita was found by driver Manohar Panse and she was declared dead by Dr. Paranjape no communication was sent by any one of them to police. On the contrary, petitioner No. 2 was asked to take away the body in an auto rickshaw. Even the guards present on the spot did not take any steps to report the matter to the superior police officer. b) The dead body was found in white Honda CRV bearing No. MH 31 DB 2727 and not in Fiat Linea bearing No. MH 31 CS 2727,but the investigation has proceeded on the lines that the body was found in the Fiat Linea Car. Initially it was claimed by the investigating agency that the body was found in Honda, CRV car and the said car was summoned on. 20-5-2009; the other car Fiat Linea was not seized till 9-6-2009 nor the finger prints were obtained from these cars. c) On. 2-6-2009 the petitioner No. 2 had identified white Honda Car as the vehicle in which dead body of Yogita was found. d) There was delay in conducting inquest panchanama which was conducted at 2.00 p.m. and in inquest panchanama the vehicle mentioned is white car i.e. Honda CRV. In the inquest panchanama it has been stated that there was blood coming out from the private part of Yogita and the injuries were found on the body. Dr. Dixit in the postmortem report has opined that the death was due to smothering which can be either homicidal or accidental. Although on 1-6-2009 the respondent No. 1 came to the prima facie conclusion that the death was homicidal suddenly the investigating agency - respondent No. 1 came with a theory of accidental death more particularly after the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur held press conference on 9- 6-2009. e) In spite of contrary reports of Dr. Sayara Marchant and Dr. Dixit with Dr. Dahake the investigating agency did not take opinion of medical panel, The report of Dr. Dixit dated 9-6-2009 does not inspire confidence inasmuch as fresh injuries found on the person of Yogita as mentioned in the post-mortem report have not been explained. e) In spite of contrary reports of Dr. Sayara Marchant and Dr. Dixit with Dr. Dahake the investigating agency did not take opinion of medical panel, The report of Dr. Dixit dated 9-6-2009 does not inspire confidence inasmuch as fresh injuries found on the person of Yogita as mentioned in the post-mortem report have not been explained. The possibility of attempting sexual intercourse or molestation is not ruled out having regard to the investigation carried out so far. The investigation reveals that the car was locked at 10.30 a.m. and the same was opened at 7 p.m. and investigating agency has not been able to find out as to how Yogita got into the car. f) The Regional Transport Officer had reported that the central locking system was in working condition. Mr. Panse also has never reported that there was any problem with locking system and as such there was no occasion for investigating officer to investigate to the aspect of failure of locking system which was done with a view to make Out a case of accidental death. g) Dr. Sayara Marchant after considering the death of Yogita has opined that death could not have been caused in the car. At some stage of investigation, investigating agency came to a prima facie conclusion that the driver of the Fiat Linea Car was negligent which theory was later on given up which clearly discloses casual nature of investigation. Mr. De, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 1 has not been able to investigate into the unnatural death of Yogita for a considerable longtime and considering that the investigation has not been carried out in fair and impartial manner the investigation be handed over to the C.B.I. According to Mr. De, the petitioner No. 2 in the course of investigation has also suspected the role of one of the guards in the commission of the crime and, therefore, this is a fit case in which the investigation deserves to be handed over to the C.B.I. In support of his submissions, Mr. De relied upon the following judgments. i) Shri Shravan Baburao Dinkar and another v. N. B. Hirve and others (1997 (2) BCR 51). ii) Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 2009 SC 984 ). De relied upon the following judgments. i) Shri Shravan Baburao Dinkar and another v. N. B. Hirve and others (1997 (2) BCR 51). ii) Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 2009 SC 984 ). iii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat ( (2007) 6 SCC 156 ) : ( AIR 2007 SC 2522 ) iv) Paramjit Kaur (Mrs.) v. State of Punjab and others ( (1996) 7 SCC 20 ). (9) PER contra, Mr. Sambre, the learned P.P. submitted that the investigation in the matter has been carried out in a fair and impartial manner and the investigating agency is not interested in protecting anybody. He further submitted that having regard to the nature of the investigation carried out so far this is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere and direct any other investigating agency more particularly the C.B.I. to investigate the crime. According to Mr. Sambre, the power of this Court to interfere with the investigation is very limited and in any case the petitioners have pot been able to make out a case for handing over the investigation to the C.B.I. or any other agency. Mr. Sambre made available the entire record of investigation for perusal of this Court which we have perused. (10) In support of his submissions, Mr. Sambre relied upon the following decisions; i) D. Venkata Subramaniam and others v. M. K. Mohan Krishnamachari and another, ( 2009 (12) Scale 483 ) : (2009 AIR SCW 6412); ii) Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 : ( AIR 2008 SC 907 ). iii) Popular Muthiah v. State (2006) 7 SCC 296 ; iv) Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation a and others (2007) 1 SCC 630 : (2007 (1) AIR Bom R 585). v) Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, (2002) 5 SCC 521 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2225 ). vi) M. C. Abraham and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 2 SCC 649 . vii) State of Haryana and others v. Ch. v) Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, (2002) 5 SCC 521 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2225 ). vi) M. C. Abraham and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 2 SCC 649 . vii) State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 ; viii) Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1658); ix) Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration and another, AIR 1988 SC 1323 ; and x) Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2001) 3 SCC 333 : ( AIR 2001 SC 668 ). At this stage we would like to mention that during the pendency of the petition the application for intervention was filed by Shri Anand Narayanrao Jammu, President of Gharelu Kamgar (Molkarni) Sanghatana. The said application came to be rejected. In the course of hearing of the said application it was brought to our notice that the report of Dr. P.G. Dixit dated 9-6-2009 was circulated in the Press Conference held by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur on 9-6-2009. Hence, we directed the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur to file affidavit. Pursuant to the said direction the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur filed affidavit on 3-12-2009 in which it has been stated that various news items in relation to the crime in question were brought to his notice wherein adverse news items were published and as such being the investigation head he thought it was his duty to bring factual and correct facts to the notice of the public and, therefore; said report was circulated. According to the Commissioner of Police, the purpose of circulation of the report was to bring to the notice of the public at large that the investigation was fair and was carried out properly. It was further claimed that by circulating the documents there was no adverse effect or impact on the investigation made. The issue as to whether investigating officer or his superior can divulge the details of investigation to the public including the media, being of vital importance, we deemed it appropriate to appoint Advocate Mr. Sunil V. Manohar as amicus curiae, and heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned amicus.curiae at length. (11) MR. The issue as to whether investigating officer or his superior can divulge the details of investigation to the public including the media, being of vital importance, we deemed it appropriate to appoint Advocate Mr. Sunil V. Manohar as amicus curiae, and heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned amicus.curiae at length. (11) MR. De, submitted that the investigating agency ought not to have disclosed the report to the public during the investigation since the same would have adverse effect upon the investigation of the crime. MR. Sambre, the learned P.P. submitted that the Commissioner of Police being administrative head was entitled to circulate the copy of the report given by Dr. Dixit to the public to justify that the investigation was carried out in a fair and proper manner. (12) MR. Sunil V. Manohar, the learned amicus curiae submitted that it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner to divulge any document forming part of the investigation since secrecy is the hall mark of investigation. According to MR. Manohar, neither the investigating officer nor his superior officer is entitled to make any documents forming part of the investigation available to the public at large including the media during investigation and only the Magistrate/Court dealing with the matter is entitled to have access to the records of investigation. According to MR. Manohar, any disclosure of such document would be detrimental to the fair investigation in the matter and investigating agency is expected to investigate the crime in a fair and impartial manner and it is not necessary for investigating officer to satisfy the public at large that the investigation is being carried out properly and in a fair manner by making available record or any part there of to the public including the media. Mr. Manohar further submitted that during investigation the investigating agency is not entitled to make available details of the investigation to the public at large on three counts viz. principle, authority and propriety. According to Mr. Manohar, in India criminal trial is expected ordinarily to be in open Court whereas investigation must always be carried out in secrecy. Mr. Manohar further submitted that any disclosure of information collected during the investigation dilutes the protection to the witnesses and may invite an attempt to divert the investigation by the accused. Mr. Manohar submitted that any such attempt would directly interfere with the fair trial. Mr. Manohar further submitted that any disclosure of information collected during the investigation dilutes the protection to the witnesses and may invite an attempt to divert the investigation by the accused. Mr. Manohar submitted that any such attempt would directly interfere with the fair trial. In support of his submissions, Mr. Manohar relied upon the following judgments. i) Attorney General v. Observer Ltd. and others, 1988 (3) WLR 776. ii) Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd- (1973 (3) WLR 298) (13) Before dealing with the matter on merits we would like to deal with the issue regarding holding of press conference by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur on 9th June, 2009 in which the report of Dr. P. G. Dixit was circulated. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Sambre that as an administrative head the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur was entitled to circulate the report given by Doctor P.G. Dixit which was the part of the investigation. Mr. Manohar is absolutely right in submitting that the investigation of any crime has to be in secrecy and the investigating agency is not entitled to divulge any information gathered during the investigation to the public on the plea that there is a criticism of the agency either by the public or by the media. No doubt the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur as an administrative head was entitled to hold a press conference and convince the public that the investigation was going on in the right direction but we are unable to accept that in order to convince the public that the investigation was going in the right direction the Commissioner of Police was entitled to make available a copy of the report to the members of the press or the public. We find considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Manohar that during the course of investigation the investigating agency is not entitled to divulge the details of investigation of a crime to the public at large on three counts i.e. principle, authority and propriety. Disclosure of any document collected during the investigation at times may dilute the protection to the witness and invite an attempt from the accused to divert the investigation. Disclosure of any document collected during the investigation at times may dilute the protection to the witness and invite an attempt from the accused to divert the investigation. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the investigating officers or their superior officers are not entitled to disclose the details of the investigation by making available to the public the copies of the documents or the information obtained during the investigation. In India, ordinarily the trial of the case is expected to be open and investigation has necessarily to be in secrecy. We hope and trust that in future the investigating officers and their superiors would not make available the documents collected or information collected during the investigation to the public at large. (14) We shall now deal with the petition on merits. Instead of referring to the judgments cited by the rival parties in detail we would like to recapitulate what propositions emerge from the judgments relied upon by both the sides. The following propositions emerge from the judgments relied upon by both the sides. i) The High Court in an appropriate case can direct investigation by the CBI but the same must be done in a rare and an exceptional case. ii) The victim of a crime is entitled to a fair investigation. iii) When accusations are made against the local police personnel it would be desirable in the larger public interest to entrust the investigation to CBI to assure credibility to the investigation. iv) Ordinarily the High Court would not interfere with the domain of investigation of crime by police in discharge of statutory duties; v) The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 can not direct the investigating agency to carry out investigation in a particular manner and it can interfere with the functioning of investigating agency in an exceptional case. vi) The High Court can direct the State to get the offence investigated and/or further investigated but can not direct reinvestigation. Coming to the merits of the matter, perusal of the investigation papers reveals that initially the investigation into the death of Yogita was carried on the footing that the death was homicidal. Dr. Dixit has opined that the cause of death was smothering. However, Dr. Coming to the merits of the matter, perusal of the investigation papers reveals that initially the investigation into the death of Yogita was carried on the footing that the death was homicidal. Dr. Dixit has opined that the cause of death was smothering. However, Dr. Sayara Marchant, Head of Unit of Paediatrics Department, Government Medical College, Nagpur has opined that the death of Yogita could not have occurred on account of suffocation in the car with doors locked. Thereafter, the prosecution sought report from the panel of the doctors, Government Medical College, Nagpur. Doctor Dixit and Doctor Dahake opined that the death of Yogita was not homicidal. Secondly, initially the investigation was carried out on the basis that the dead body of Yogita was found in Honda CRV vehicle bearing No. MH 31 DB 2727 and there is a reference to this effect in the inquest panchanama. However, on the basis of the statements of several witnesses the investigating officer came to the prima facie finding that the dead body was found in Fiat Linea Car bearing registration No. MH 31 CS 2727. The record also discloses that Fiat Linea Car was referred for opinion of Regional Transport Officer to opine as to whether locking system of the said vehicle was in order and the Regional Transport Officer opined that the locking system was functioning property. However, subsequently the locking system of the said car was tested in the Police Station and it was noticed that out of three attempts in two attempts the locking system did not operate properly. The record also discloses that in post mortem report doctor noted injuries on the person of Yogita and blood stains were found on the clothes of Yogita. Moreover, the guards present on the spot did not take any prompt action in the matter to report the matter to superior police officer. (15) In the background of the above facts, we find that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the investigation is not being carried out fairly and properly can not be said to be without substance. The record discloses that though initially the investigating officer came to a prima facie conclusion that the death of Yogita was homicidal and, therefore, registered the crime under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code later on the investigating officer came to a prima facie conclusion that the death was accidental. The record discloses that though initially the investigating officer came to a prima facie conclusion that the death of Yogita was homicidal and, therefore, registered the crime under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code later on the investigating officer came to a prima facie conclusion that the death was accidental. No doubt Mr. Sambre, the learned P.P. submitted that the investigating officer has not come to the final conclusion and investigation is still in progress but considering the fact that the death of Yogita had occurred on 19-5-2009 and no much headway has been made by the investigating agency to come to a definite conclusion, we are of the considered opinion, that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner cannot be said to be baseless. As stated, initially the petitioner No. 1 claimed that the dead body of Yogita was found in Honda CRV Car and she even identified the vehicle but the investigating agency officer on the basis of the statements of several witnesses came to the conclusion that the dead body was found in Fiat Linea. In the course of investigation the Regional Transport Officer opined that the locking system of the car was functioning properly whereas the investigating agency later on on the basis of the tests conducted in the police station found that the locking system was not operational on two occasions out of three. Moreover, the injuries were found on the person of Yogita during the post mortem and her clothes were having blood stains. All these aspects are required to be thoroughly investigated to find out whether death of Yogita was homicidal or accidental. In our considered opinion, having regard to the investigation carried out so far by the respondent No. 1 this is a fit case in which investigation deserves to be handed over to any other agency for proper and effective investigation of the various aspects to which we have made reference. However, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. De that this is a fit case in which the investigation is to be handed over to C.B.I.. Merely because the petitioners suspect the role of a guard in the crime is by itself is not the reason to hand over the investigation to the C.B.I.. As held by the Apex Court investigation of a crime can be handed over to CBI in a rare and exceptional case. Merely because the petitioners suspect the role of a guard in the crime is by itself is not the reason to hand over the investigation to the C.B.I.. As held by the Apex Court investigation of a crime can be handed over to CBI in a rare and exceptional case. Considering the manner in which the investigation has been carried out, in our opinion, the interest of justice would be met if further investigation is handed over to State CID. (16) We would like to make it clear that we have avoided to make detailed reference to the investigation carried out so that the same should not prejudice either the victim or the accused in the event death of Yogita is found to be homicidal. We have expressed our prima facie opinion on the basis of the investigation carried out so far by respondent No. 1. We would also like to clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All the aspects including whether the death of Yogita was homicidal or accidental would have to be investigated by the State CID. We, therefore, direct the State CID to investigate further the death of Yogita Thakre registered vide FIR No. 90/09 at Kotwali Police Station, Nagpur on 19th May, 2009. We hope and trust that the CID will carry out investigation expeditiously in the right earnest and would take appropriate steps in accordance with law. (17) Before parting, we would like to place on record our appreciation to Advocate Sunil Manohar, learned amicus curiae for the valuable assistance rendered to the Court for deciding the important issue as to whether the investigating agency in the course of investigation can make available the documents obtained or information collected during the course of investigation to the public. Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly.