ORDER 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner/de facto-complainant, seeking an order to direct the first respondent, Inspector General of Police, New Natham Road, Madurai to transfer the investigation in Crime No. 125 of 2010 on the file of the respondents 3 and 4 to the fifth respondent, the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. 2. As per the copy of the FIR, it is seen that originally the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., based on the complaint given by the petitioner/de facto-complainant herein. The petitioner/de facto-complainant has stated in the complaint that on 18.2.2010, at about 6.45 p.m, the father-in-law of his sister, Rafia Banu contacted him over phone and informed that at the forenoon of the aforesaid date, after taking lunch, the said Rafia Banu had gone to her room at the upstairs of her matrimonial home, subsequently, she did not come out of the room. Hence, her father-in-law and others broke open the door and found that the petitioner‘s sister Rafia Banu was found hanging dead. Immediately, after hearing the news, the petitioner/de facto-complainant with his relatives, rushed to the matrimonial home of the deceased, where at the second floor, the dead body of Rafia Banu was kept in her chudithar dress and the petitioner herein also found ligature markings on her neck portion. The petitioner/de facto-complainant had suspicion in her death, hence, lodged a complaint before the police requesting the police to investigate and take appropriate action. 3. In the Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner has stated that as per the order passed in Crl. O.P (MD). No. 2280 of 2011, by this Court, direction was given to file charge sheet within two months after complying with the direction in the case. However, charge sheet was not filed within the time limit. Similarly, hyoid bone of the deceased was not preserved and sent for chemical analysis to find out if there was any injury caused to the deceased prior to her death. It is submitted that the room where the alleged hanging was taken place was subsequently demolished and modified by the accused to make disappearance of any valuable clues to this case. It is submitted that the room where the alleged hanging was taken place was subsequently demolished and modified by the accused to make disappearance of any valuable clues to this case. The petitioner has further stated that postmortem was done by two Doctors at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who gave opinion that the body had been in an advanced stage of decomposition and on verification, two injuries were found at the earlier postmortem around the neck of the deceased, however, regarding the same, there was no interrogation by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 4. The petitioner had moved an application to find out whether there was any document received by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai relating to the case, but to his surprise, an alleged suicide note was belatedly recovered and sent to document expert of the Forensic Lab, Madurai and after comparison of hand writing of the deceased alleged to have been recovered from the residence of the accused by the fourth respondent. It is further stated that the exhumation of body of the deceased, raising suspicion, hence, the petitioner herein has sought an order to transfer the investigation of the case to the fifth respondent, CBI, Chennai. 5. The third respondent has filed written objection against the plea of the petitioner/de facto-complainant, wherein he has stated that the petitioner herein had already filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to invoke the inherent power of this Court for the very same relief and sought transfer of investigation from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam and Inspector of Police, Karuppayurani police station to Crime Branch Investigation Department (CBCID) of other District in Tamil Nadu for further investigation. By order, dated 3.8.2010 passed in Crl. O.P (MD). No. 6824 of 2010, this Court issued the following directions : “(a) The first respondent, The Inspector General of Police of South Zone is directed to depute the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam Sub-Division and direct him to re-investigate the matter afresh on basis of the complaint given by the petitioner. (b) The concerned jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to take steps to exhume the body of the deceased Rabia Banu and to conduct another Autopsy on her body with a team of Doctors. (b) The concerned jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to take steps to exhume the body of the deceased Rabia Banu and to conduct another Autopsy on her body with a team of Doctors. (c) The first respondent is further directed to depute the Superintendent of Police, Madurai to supervise the matter and to file a final report in accordance with law.” 6. Learned Government advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that in obedience of the order passed by this Court, the first respondent directed the second respondent, by his order in C. No. C1/201/784/2010 instructing the third respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam to take up the investigation and accordingly, steps were taken to exhume the body of the deceased Rafia Banu and subsequently autopsy was also conducted by a team of Doctors. The third respondent conducted further investigation, examined witnesses, after visiting the scene of occurrence, seized an alleged suicide note written in one of the pages of a receipt book and intimated the same to the petitioner, so as to collect the sample specimen writings of the deceased and also made arrangements for sending the viscera and other parts of the body of the deceased for forensic test. In the meantime, since the third respondent was transferred on 16.2.2011, the investigation is being continued by his successor and almost the investigation has been completed and awaiting only for the report of the super imposition test for filing the charge sheet. 7. Learned Government advocate has submitted that the third respondent has given assurance in writing, by way of filing counter to file the final report as soon as the report of the forensic report is received, without any delay. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Government advocate has submitted that the request of the petitioner/de facto-complainant is unsustainable and could not meet the ends of justice. 8. In order to throw light on the legal aspect, the following decisions were cited by both the learned counsel for deciding the Criminal Original Petition : 1. Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 79 : LNIND 2011 SC 391 : (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 270 2. Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 2004 SC 2078 : (2004) SCC (Cri) 1603 : LNIND 2004 SC 433 9. Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 79 : LNIND 2011 SC 391 : (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 270 2. Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 2004 SC 2078 : (2004) SCC (Cri) 1603 : LNIND 2004 SC 433 9. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and Others (supra), the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, relying on the earlier decision in R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 38 : (1994) SCC (Cr) 248 : LNIND 1992 SC 419 has held as follows : “36. The above decisions and the principles stated therein have been referred to and followed by this Court in Rubbabuddin Sheikh (supra) wherealso it was held that considering the fact that the allegations have been leveled against higher level police officers, despite the investigation made by the police authorities of the State of Gujarat, ordered investigation by the CBI. Without entering into the allegations leveled by either of the parties, we are of the view that it would be prudent and advisable to transfer the investigation to an independent agency. It is trite law that accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigation agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.” 10. In an unreported Judgment in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar in Criminal Appeal Nos. 753 to 755 of 2009, it has been ruled by the Hon‘ble Apex Court that the High Court can pass an order on an application entertaining after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been made clear by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that the High Court is empowered to direct any particular investigating agency under Section 482 Cr.P.C to investigate the matter, to meet the ends of justice. 11. However, it is well settled that accused person cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them. It was further held that when serious aspersions are cast and allegations levelled against the local police that impartially not conducting the investigation, it is proper to entrust the investigation to independent agency like CBI. 12. 11. However, it is well settled that accused person cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them. It was further held that when serious aspersions are cast and allegations levelled against the local police that impartially not conducting the investigation, it is proper to entrust the investigation to independent agency like CBI. 12. In the instant case, only on the petition filed by the petitioner/de facto -complainant, the earlier direction was given by this Court and accordingly, the investigation was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam Sub-Division, Madurai District, the third respondent herein. Pursuant to the directions, exhumation was done. After the autopsy, viscera and other parts of the deceased were sent to forensic department for Test. It is seen from the counter filed by the third respondent that report relating to super imposition is awaited from the Forensic Department, for filing the final report. Therefore, based on the allegations raised against the third respondent, the investigation of the case cannot be transferred to CBI or any other investigating agency at the stage of filing final report before the Court below. 13. The petitioner/de facto-complainant has raised serious doubts on the investigation, especially on the alleged suicide note. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/de facto-complainant, the alleged suicide note could have been a created document and not a genuine one. It was also contended that without establishing the genuineness and the evidenciary value of the document in the manner known to law, the same could not be considered by the Court. However, at the stage of filing final report, based on the alleged similar note or raising some other allegation, the petitioner cannot seek transfer of investigation to CBI or any other agency. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the earlier order passed by this Court and the compliance of the directions given by this Court, I am of the view that there is no need to order for further investigation by CBI or other agency in this matter. 15. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the earlier order passed by this Court and the compliance of the directions given by this Court, I am of the view that there is no need to order for further investigation by CBI or other agency in this matter. 15. However, considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the offence, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to take immediate steps to file the final report scrupulously following the earlier directions given by this Court in the previous order, without causing any delay and it is also made clear that the petitioner/de facto-complainant, being an affected party in the eye of law is entitled to assist for proper prosecution of the case by expressing the suspicious circumstances, if any to the Investigating Officer and the prosecution, to testify the genuineness of the alleged suicide note in the manner known to law. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.