ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is informant of Rupaspur P.S. Case No.184 of 2012 dated 7.12.2012 registered under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is based on the written information submitted by the petitioner to the officer-in-charge of the police station on 7.12.2012 in respect to an occurrence which took place on 13.11.2012. 3. It has been stated in the FIR that on 13.11.2012 the petitioner received information that his daughter Himani Rana had sustained burn injury from DIYA used for offering Puja. She was admitted in Apollo Burn Hospital. On further enquiry, he came to know that smell of Kerosene oil was emanating from her burnt clothes and on the same day at about 5.55 p.m. she died. Thereafter, the dead body of Himani Rana was sent to the petitioner’s village and taking into consideration the nature of injury found on the dead body and from the talk and behaviour of Rajiv Rana (husband of the deceased) the petitioner could infer that his daughter was murdered after due deliberation by the accused persons in conspiracy with each other. It has further been alleged that about 8-10 days prior to the said occurrence the accused Rajiv Rana in collusion with his brother Chandra Prakash Rana and sister-in-law Smt. Gita Rani had made a plan to commit murder of Himani Rana. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police is in collusion with the accused persons and the investigation is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner. He further submitted that till date the named accused persons of the FIR have not been arrested and, as such, the ongoing investigation of the case be ordered to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the manner of investigation cannot be dictated by the informant of the case. According to him, the petitioner has rushed to the court within two and half months making allegations against the investigating agency merely on conjectures and surmises. He submitted that there is nothing on the record on the basis of which it can be assumed that the investigation is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner. 6. According to him, the petitioner has rushed to the court within two and half months making allegations against the investigating agency merely on conjectures and surmises. He submitted that there is nothing on the record on the basis of which it can be assumed that the investigation is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner. 6. After having heard the parties, I am of the opinion that the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for handing over the investigation of the case to the C.B.I cannot be allowed. 7. Admittedly, as per the FIR, the petitioner came to know about the alleged murder of his daughter on 13.11.2012 and even the dead body of his daughter was sent to him. However, he did not choose to institute the FIR immediately. The FIR has been instituted after inordinate delay on 7.12.2012. 8. In the writ petition a representation submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar, has been brought on record and marked as annexure 2. In the said representation, the facts stated in paragraph 9(XXI) are as under:— “In the postmortem report, nothing is mentioned. Simply mentioned about the burn parts of the body and % of burning. Had she been given poison? Had she been made unconscious before burning? Had she been hit back side of neck? Nothing is mentioned about this. No one was interested to know the reason of such burn injury.” 9. If the postmortem report is in possession of the petitioner, I fail to understand as to why he has not brought the same on record. The petitioner has approached this court suspecting the bona fide of investigation for the reason that though more than two and half months have elapsed but the investigating agency has failed to apprehend the named accused persons. In this regard I may say that if an information regarding the cognizable offence is brought to the notice of a police officer, though he has the power to arrest but he can still refrain from arresting a person depending upon the nature of offence and circumstances unfurled not only in the FIR but also during the course of investigation. The police is not expected to act mechanically in all cases to arrest an accused as soon as a report is lodged. The police is not expected to act mechanically in all cases to arrest an accused as soon as a report is lodged. Since arrest is in the nature of encroachment on the liberty of a person, the police has to exercise the power cautiously. 10. In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others since reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 , the Apex Court in paragraph 27 held as under:— “27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.” 11. In T.C. Thangaraj Vs. V.Engammal & Ors. since reported in A.I.R. 2011 SC 3010 two appeals had been preferred before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the order by which the High Court had entrusted the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Hon’ble Apex Court after discussing the facts of the case in detail and taking into consideration the previous judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. since reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 1476 held in paragraph nos.9 and 10 as under:— “9. The decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (supra) will have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (supra). The decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (supra) will have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (supra). The Constitution Bench has considered at length the power of the High Court to direct investigation by the CBI into a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while taking the view that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cautioned that the courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations. Para 70 of the opinion of the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors ( AIR 2010 SC 1476 : 2010 AIR SCW 1829)(supra) is extracted hereinbelow:— “Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” (emphasis supplied) “10. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” (emphasis supplied) “10. It will be clear from the opinion of the Constitution Bench quoted above that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct investigation by the CBI is to be exercised only sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and an order directing to CBI is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. In the impugned order, the High Court has not exercised its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed the CBI to investigate into the complaint with a view to protect her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution or to enforce her fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The High Court has exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC on a grievance made by the complainant that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan transaction of Rs 3 lakhs by the three accused persons, was not being investigated properly because one of the accused persons is an Inspector of Police. In our considered view, this was not one of those exceptional situations calling for exercise of extraordinary power of the High Court to direct investigation into the complaint by CBI. If the High Court found that the investigation was not being completed because P. Kalaikathiravan, an Inspector of Police, was one of the accused persons, the High Court should have directed the Superintendent of Police to entrust the investigation to an officer senior in rank to the Inspector of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC and not to CBI. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (See Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409 : ( AIR 2008 SC 907 : 2008 AIR SCW 309)).” 12. (See Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409 : ( AIR 2008 SC 907 : 2008 AIR SCW 309)).” 12. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of an investigation to be handed over to the Central Bureau of investigation, I find that the incident has no national and international ramification. There is nothing extraordinary about the present case. The informant cannot choose the Investigating Agency of his choice for the purpose of investigation of a case brought at his instance. There is absolutely no merit in this case. It is dismissed, accordingly.