JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Annexure – AC, dated 17-10-2008 issued by the second respondent and also a direction to transfer the case to the CBI for further investigation. 2. The matter arises in the following manner: The petitioner’s friend one J.J.Simpson of Indian Army was brutally murdered in Mangala Express during his travel to his native place after completing training. The said incident, it appears is stated to have been taken place on 2-5-2006. On the same day, another passenger one Mr. Balasubramaniam was accompanying Simpson in the said train, reported the matter to the railway authorities, jurisdictional police, who have registered the case in Crime No.3 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A case is registered by Konkan Railway Police, Manipal, Udupi District. The petitioner is the brother of deceased Simpson. It is their apprehension that they suspect the accompanying person i.e., Balasubramaniam and requested the railway police to speed up the investigation but however they received two communications informing that the deceased Simpson’s wife Smt. Vimala was the real culprit, inasmuch as, she had illicit affair with on Saravanakumar. Later it is further revealed that their daughter-in-law (Smt.Vimla) is having illicit affair with him from her school days. Since the investigation, according to the petitioner, is not being conducted expeditiously, to nab the culprit, the present petition is filed. 3. When the matter is taken up, Mr. Narendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the investigation is in progress and the wife of the deceased as well as Saravanakumar have been interrogated and their statement is recorded. Indeed a perusal of Annexure-AC, dated 17-10-2008 would clearly indicate that the Additional Director General of Police, Crime and Technical Service had intimated the Superintendent of Police at Udupi to conduct the investigation properly and the Investigating Officer should be instructed to interrogate the suspect and collect other evidence to detect the case. He was also of the view that Superintendent of Police may consider entrusting the investigation to another Investigating Officer, if necessary. Transferring the case to another agency is not the solution. 4. Apparently, the petitioner seeks investigation by the CBI solely on the ground that the charge-sheet is not filed so far. He was also of the view that Superintendent of Police may consider entrusting the investigation to another Investigating Officer, if necessary. Transferring the case to another agency is not the solution. 4. Apparently, the petitioner seeks investigation by the CBI solely on the ground that the charge-sheet is not filed so far. I am of the view that non-filing of a charge-sheet by itself will not be a good ground to entrust the investigation to CBI. Indeed, certain exceptional circumstances are required to be stated to exist before the investigation is entrusted to CBI. Indeed, the Apex Court has ruled that it is within the domain of the Court to refer the matter to CBI for investigation but however, that is required to be done in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine investigation. I am of the view that no exceptional circumstance exists for referring the investigation to CBI. More so, having regard to the fact that the jurisdictional police and the investigating agency is doing its best. 5. Having heard to these facts, I am of the view that there are no compelling reasons for me to issue a direction for transferring the investigating from the jurisdictional police to CBI. Needless to say, the Investigating Officer shall conclude the investigation at the earliest and bring home the culprit. 6. With this observation, petition stands disposed of.