JUDGMENT Nagamohan Das, J. 1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the final report dated 21.10.2010 in UDR 35/2009 filed by the detective Inspector CID, Bangalore and seeking for fresh investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. Petitioner's son by name Prateek Kumar Thakur was studying in third Semester of B.E.(Telecommunication) at Dayanand Sagar College of Engineering, Bangalore during the year 2009. On 13.08.2009 at about 1.00 pm, petitioner got information from the college authorities that his son fell down from the roof of the college and they have admitted him to hospital and he is under treatment. On this information the petitioner rushed to Bangalore at about 10.30 p.m. on the very same day. On reaching Bangalore petitioner was informed that his son Prateek Kumar Thakur died immediately after the incident. Petitioner and his wife went to Dayananda Sagar Hospital where the dead body of their son was kept. The staff of the college informed that petitioner's son accidentally fell down from the 7th floor of the building and the same was reported to Kumaraswamy Layout police and the same was registered in UDR 35/2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Though petitioner requested the police that the post mortem be videographed the same was turned down. Petitioner being the father suspected the cause of death of his son and lodged a complaint with the Kumaraswamy Police station on 14.08.2009 as per Annexure-F and the same reads as under: To, The Officer-in-Charge, Police station Kumar swamy layout, Bangalore. From, Manoj Kumar Thakur B52, Harmu Housing colony, Harmu, Ranchi, Mob: 09334431591 09546461340 Sub: Investigation of demise of Prateek Kumar Thakur under mysterious condition inside Dayanand Sagar Institution Campus. Sir, This is to bring to your kind notice that I am the unfortunate father of Prateek Kumar Thakur who demised untimely on 13-Aug, 09 under mysterious condition inside D.S.I. Campus. I suspect that my son has been pushed by someone. I request you for thorough investigation in this regard and bring justice to us. I am leaving for Patna (my native place) to offer last rituals to my son. I can be contacted on above mentioned address. I request you to go through the CCTV footages installed in the building where this happened. I will be awaiting for justice. Also he made calls to Cell No.9964732068 at 10.52 a.m. on 13.08.2009 about 15 times. I am leaving for Patna (my native place) to offer last rituals to my son. I can be contacted on above mentioned address. I request you to go through the CCTV footages installed in the building where this happened. I will be awaiting for justice. Also he made calls to Cell No.9964732068 at 10.52 a.m. on 13.08.2009 about 15 times. His ATM card was also stolen recently. Yours sincerely, (MANOJ KUMAR THAKUR) 3. The Kumaraswamy Layout Police without registering the complaint of the petitioner proceeded to investigate the matter. In the course of investigation the higher authorities orally instructed the Kumaraswamy Layout police to hand over further investigation to CCB. Accordingly, the further investigation was handed over to CCB on 28.12.2009. The fourth respondent completed the investigation and submitted a report on 21.10.2010 stating that the death was accidental or suicidal. It was not a case of murder. Aggrieved by this report submitted by the fourth respondent police the petitioner is before this court to set-aside the report, to register the case and direct the Central Bureau Investigation to investigate the matter. 4. Petitioner party-in-person submitted arguments and he was also extended the assistance of panel advocate of High Court Legal Services Committee. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers. 5. Immediately after the incident on 13.08.2009, on information the Kumarswamy Layout police station registered UDR 35/2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. On next day i.e. 14.08.2009 petitioner being the father of the deceased lodged a complaint with the very same police as per Annexure-F suspecting that his son has been pushed by someone and the death of his son was under mysterious condition. When such being the case, in all fairness, the jurisdictional police ought to have registered the case in crime number and investigated the matter. In the instant case, without registering the crime an enquiry was held in UDR 35/2009 by the respondent police. Therefore, I am of the view that the complaint lodged by the petitioner as per Annexure-F ought to have been registered and investigated. 6. In the report at Annexure-S filed by the fourth respondent it is stated that as per Annexure-Z9 a certificate issued by the Sagar Hospitals, Jayanagar, Bangalore specifies that on 13.08.2009 deceased Prateek Kumar Thakur was brought dead to the hospital at 11.55 AM. 6. In the report at Annexure-S filed by the fourth respondent it is stated that as per Annexure-Z9 a certificate issued by the Sagar Hospitals, Jayanagar, Bangalore specifies that on 13.08.2009 deceased Prateek Kumar Thakur was brought dead to the hospital at 11.55 AM. The medical certificate in Form 4A issued under Rule 7 as per Annexure-Z11 specifies that deceased Prateek Kumar Thakur was under the treatment of Doctor on 13.08.2009 and he died at 12.55 p.m. Another medical certificate issued by the Sagar Hospital as per Annexure-D specifies that on 13.08.2009 the deceased was brought to the hospital at 12.05 p.m. and declared clinically dead at 12.55 p.m. This inconsistency in the certificates issued by the Sagar Hospitals with regard to the timings of death of deceased is not properly enquired and nailed down by the fourth respondent police. 7. The Sagar hospital in their communication dated 14.03.2012 to the District Health and Family Welfare Officer as per Z7 stated that on 13.08.2009 the body of Prateek Kumar Thakur was brought to the Hospital in a lifeless condition and the hospital has provided only mortuary services. In the E.R. case sheet of Sagar hospital, Annexure-D specifies that injured Prateek Kumar Thakur was brought to the emergency room, he was unconscious and unresponsive state. At 12.05 pm, 12.15 pm, 12.30 pm and 12.50 p.m., injunction Adrenaline 1 amp and injunction-atropine 1 amp was given every three minutes. Inspite of the above measures patient was not responding and therefore declared dead at 12.55 p.m. One Col.Kumar stated before the police at 11.45 a.m. the accident had took place, the injured was taken to the hospital and for about half an hour emergency treatment was given. Since the treatment failed the injured died. Again the enquiry conducted by the fourth respondent police failed to conclude whether the deceased was brought dead to the hospital or alive and whether the treatment was given or not. This is a serious lapse on the part of fourth respondent police. 8. Some of the witnesses have stated that deceased fell down from the roof of building, some other witnesses stated that he fell down from 7th floor and some other witnesses say that he fell down from 4th floor. Again this inconsistency in the statement made by the witnesses is not properly investigated and have not concluded from which floor the deceased fell down. Again this inconsistency in the statement made by the witnesses is not properly investigated and have not concluded from which floor the deceased fell down. This is yet another lapse on the part of the fourth respondent police. 9. The Police Inspector in his report dated 28.09.2009 as per Annexure-Q stated before he left Bangalore on transfer he instructed to examine the CCTV installed in every floor of the college building from which deceased fell down. The college management provided the footage of CCTV installed in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors. Further the college management requested time to provide the footage of CCTV in 5th, 6th and 7th floors. The college management informed the police that the cameras installed in 5th, 6th and 7th floors were not working. One witness by name Col.Kumar in his statement states that no CC camera was installed in the 7th floor. He further states that the footage of the CC TV specifies that @ 10.00 AM the deceased was climbing the stairs. Again this inconsistency from the version of college management and the witnesses are not enquired to a logical end. 10. From the final report it is seen that some of the key witnesses figured in the statement of other witnesses are not examined. For instance, Dr.Nitin in his statement stated that while he was examining the injured Prateek Kumar Thakur, another lady by name Shwetha was brought to the hospital. On examination of this Shwetha she stated that the deceased while falling from the building fell down on her left shoulder and on clinical examination it was found that there was abrasion on her left shoulder and she was advised to undergo X ray and to take treatment as an inpatient for two days. The statement of this witness Shweta is not recorded. Further it is stated that one Shankarappa a security in the college stated that on the date of incident he was working in the fourth floor of the building and at 11.45 a.m. he heard big sound and he rushed to the 7th floor and he found a black bag alleged to have been belonging to the deceased. If sound is generated from the ground floor on the fall of the deceased then there is no reason for this witness to go to the 7th floor to collect the bag. If sound is generated from the ground floor on the fall of the deceased then there is no reason for this witness to go to the 7th floor to collect the bag. In this regard, the fourth respondent police have not properly enquired into the matter. In this way there are several infirmities, lapses and latches on the part of the fourth respondent police in submitting the final report. 11. From the above facts it is clear that fourth respondent police has not investigated the matter as per the established procedure. In order to do justice it is necessary to direct a fresh investigation. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat held that in appropriate case, particularly when the Court feels that the investigation by the State Police authorities is not proper and in order to complete justice it is always open for the Court to handover the investigation to a specialized agency. 12. In the instant case the petitioner has prayed for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Merely because the petitioner made allegations against the police is not a ground to order for investigation by CBI. The Supreme Court in 2010 (3) SCC 57 explained the circumstances for ordering investigation by CBI. In the instant case there are no such circumstances warranting CBI investigation. 13. For the reasons stated above, the following; ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The final report dated 21.10.2010 in UDR No. 35/2009 submitted by fourth respondent is hereby set aside. iii. The second respondent Director General of Police to direct the concerned police to register FIR on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 14.08.2009 and to entrust the investigation to an efficient officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ordered accordingly.