JUDGMENT M.T. JOSHI, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner prays that the investigation being carried by the present respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. the P.S.I. of Mukundwadi Police Station and Assistant Commissioner of Police, CIDCO Division in the complaint filed by her, be withdrawn and the same may be transferred to respondent No. 4 i.e. the Director General of Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). 3. The husband of the deceased went missing since 29.6.2007. According to her, missing person, namely Rajkishor was serving as a body-guard of one Rajkumar Dhoot. Said Rajkumar Dhoot is engaged in some business activities which are not in consonance with the public policies. The deceased had smelled something foul. In the circumstances, said Rajkumar Dhoot suspended the husband of the petitioner on 19.4.2007. When enquiry was made with said Rajkumar Dhoot, the husband of the petitioner was asked to meet his Personal Assistant, namely, Karim Baig. When again, enquiry was made with said Karim Baig, the husband of the petitioner was asked to meet him alongwith Dinesh Gange i.e. another employee of Rajkumar Dhoot. In the circumstances, on 29.6.2007, the husband of the petitioner, upon receipt of the phone call from the office of Rajkumar Dhoot on his cell, went with said Dinesh Gange at about 4 p.m. Since then, the husband of the petitioner has gone missing. In the circumstances, after waiting for 24 hours and after receiving the vague answers from Karim Baig, Dinesh Gange and Rajkumar Dhoot, she lodged complaint with respondent No. 2. A missing case No. 58/2007 was registered with Mukundwadi Police Station. Since there was no progress in the investigation, she made a representation to respondent No. 1 on 5.7.2007 by giving all these facts. The statement of the petitioner was recorded, a copy of which is at Exhibit-A to the present petition. She also made a representation (Exhibit-B) on 5.7.2007 to the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. However, no investigation was carried. The petitioner, therefore, filed a private complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) (Railway Court), Aurangabad. Finding that no fruitful result would come out of the said complaint, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 390/2009 before this Court, seeking writ of habeas corpus. However, no investigation was carried. The petitioner, therefore, filed a private complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) (Railway Court), Aurangabad. Finding that no fruitful result would come out of the said complaint, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 390/2009 before this Court, seeking writ of habeas corpus. However, the respondent No. 2, the P.S.I. of Mukundwadi Police Station, in his affidavit-in-reply, submitted that the search of the husband of the petitioner would be continued and every step would be taken to locate him. Relying on the said statement, the Division Bench has dismissed the said writ petition on 30.6.2009. At that time, the respondent No. 2 had filed one document (Exhibit-D), annexed to his affidavit-in-reply. Said Exhibit-D is purported to be the statement of the present writ petitioner. The said statement, however, was forged and was never made to the respondent No. 2. This statement purports that the petitioner has, due to misunderstanding, suspected Karim Baig. In the circumstances, she submits that the investigation be withdrawn from respondent No. 2 and the same be transferred to respondent No. 3 - C.B.I. 4. The learned A.P.P., however, opposed the writ petition. He submits that the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad would show that the Commissioner of Police has now personally perused the case papers. The Assistant Commissioner of Police was directed to conduct inquiry whereupon the Assistant Commissioner of Police has recorded the statement of the complainant i.e. the present petitioner and also the statements of the suspects. He came to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer had carried proper investigation and submitted the report to the deponent i.e. the Commissioner of Police. The deponent had also assured that the investigation in the missing complaint would be continued. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. During the argument, it was pointed out that the statement of the present petitioner was recorded in presence of her brother-in-law. However, the counter argument was made that the said brother-in-law is still in employment of Rajkumar Dhoot and as such, he may have managed the case for recording statement of the present petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since said Rajkumar Dhoot is currently Member of Parliament and an Industrialist, the respondents No. 1 to 3 are not carrying the investigation earnestly. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since said Rajkumar Dhoot is currently Member of Parliament and an Industrialist, the respondents No. 1 to 3 are not carrying the investigation earnestly. The false statements are imputed to the present petitioner and hence, it was submitted that the present petition be allowed. 7. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of “Chunda Murmu v. State of West Bengal” 2012 ALL SCR 1612, “Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra and another” 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 727 (S.C.) and “Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and others” AIR 2011 S.C. 1804 : [2011 ALL SCR 1339]. 8. In all these cases, relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, while underlining the power of the High Court for transfer of the investigation, in the facts of two of the cited cases, the investigation was withdrawn from the regular Investigating Officer and was transferred to CID and CBI, respectively. In the case of “Chunda Murmu v. State of West Bengal” (cited supra), certain observations regarding inappropriate investigation was made. 9. Besides this, it was pointed out that a private handwriting expert has given his opinion on the basis of a photocopy of the disputed signature of the petitioner over the next of the statement and her natural handwriting, which would show that the signatures are different. 10. It should, however, be noted that admittedly the text of the statement shows that it was recorded in presence of brother-in-law of the petitioner (Exhibit-F, page 32), namely, Jugalkishor Singh Kuwar and his signature was also obtained. Further, admittedly complaint filed by the petitioner with Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) is dismissed as the petitioner remained absent. However, it is not necessary to go further into the details of the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly finding that the missing report, filed immediately, does not contain any allegations as are found in the writ petition, without making any further comment on the merit of the case and to avoid any embarrassment in further investigation, in our view, this is not a case where extraordinary jurisdiction for transfer of the case is required to be exercised by this Court. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs, by making it clear that the observations made in the earlier order by this Court in Writ Petition No. 390/2009 shall stand continued. Rule stands discharged accordingly. Petition dismissed.