JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant seeking a direction for fair investigation of F.I.R. No. 113/2012 registered at P.S. Ratangarh District Churu. 2. During the pendency of the miscellaneous petition, a charge sheet was filed after investigation by the C.I.D. (CB) and then another application was moved by the petitioner seeking a direction for sending the matter for further investigation to the C.B.I. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's daughter Geeta was married to Vijay Kumar on 27.3.2011. She succumbed to unnatural death at her marital home on 19.3.2012. The petitioner and his other relatives immediately reached the scene of the occurrence and he was informed by the in laws that Geeta had fallen into a water tank and expired as a result thereof. Smt. Geeta was carrying a pregnancy of 8 months at the time of her death. The petitioner filed a first information report at P.S. Ratangarh with the allegation that all the marital relations of Geeta including her husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law, mother-in-law were continuously harassing and torturing the deceased for demand of dowry. A specific reference was made in the F.I.R. that Geeta called the complainant on 17.3.2012 and told him that her marital relations were conspiring to kill her and that she was being pressurised in relation to the demand of a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. On 19.3.2012, he received the information about Geeta's unnatural death. On the basis of the report, F.I.R. No. 113/2012 was registered at P.S. Ratangarh and the investigation commenced. 4. When despite repeated requests for fair investigation, no action was forthcoming from the police, the petitioner moved this miscellaneous petition before this Court on 6.8.2012. 5. It is relevant to mention here that despite the lapse of five months since the registration of the F.I.R. for a case involving dowry death of a married lady within a period of one year of her marriage no accused had been arrested by the time the miscellaneous petition was filed by the complainant. 6. This Court took cognizance of the matter and directed issuance of notice to the State authorities on 17.8.2012. 7. On 27.8.2012 whilst considering the matter, the Court observed that the attending circumstances ruled out the possibility of suicide and that the accused party is paid to be influential. 6. This Court took cognizance of the matter and directed issuance of notice to the State authorities on 17.8.2012. 7. On 27.8.2012 whilst considering the matter, the Court observed that the attending circumstances ruled out the possibility of suicide and that the accused party is paid to be influential. On the very day this Court was informed that the matter has been transferred to the C.I.D. (CB) for investigation at the behest of the accused party. 8. When the complainant sought information under the Right to Information Act, he was informed that between January, 2009 to 8.6.2012 the only case involving dowry transferred to C.I.D. (CB) was the present one. 9. The complainant expressed serious apprehensions and doubts about the intent and bona fides of the investigating agency regarding the manner in which the investigation was being carried out. This Court specifically put following queries to the Investigating Officer: (a) Why the accused persons have not been arrested till date. (b) Why was the F.I.R. registered after a gap of three days. (c) What evidence has been collected till now. (d) Why this particular case alone was picked up to hand it over to C.I.D. (CB) in the last three years. 10. The reply to the queries made by the Court was filed by the State authority and the matter was taken up on 13.9.2012. For the query No. (a) made by this Court in the order dated 27.8.2012, no satisfactory explanation about was forthcoming and the Court feeling dissatisfied with the reply stayed the investigation. 11. On 19.11.2012 when this Court expressed displeasure about the explanation given by the Assistant Home Secretary regarding point (a) of this Court's order dated 27.8.2012, the Addl. Advocate General assured the Court that he will direct the I.O. to take immediate and stringent steps for apprehending the accused. In view of this assurance, the ad interim stay order dated 13.9.2012 was vacated. 12. On 24.11.2012 the Court was informed by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the accused Chuka Devi had been arrested on 20.11.2012. It was also informed that the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., had also been added to the case and that the accused Vijay the husband of the deceased was employed in the Indian Air Force and was undergoing training at a far off place and thus some time was sought for arresting him. It was also informed that the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., had also been added to the case and that the accused Vijay the husband of the deceased was employed in the Indian Air Force and was undergoing training at a far off place and thus some time was sought for arresting him. The matter was thereafter again adjourned. 13. The case thereafter took a turn and the Investigating Agency appears to have started caving the matter up and rather than arresting the husband, evidence was created for establishing that Vijay was innocent because he had allegedly talked to the deceased for three hours on the fateful night on which Geeta expired. This Court was informed about the said development through the progress report/compliance report filed on 30.1.2013. 14. The Investigating Officer also informed this Court that Chuka Devi has been arrested for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. (Apparently Section 304-B I.P.C. having been given up by the Investigating Agency despite the statement made by the Addl. Advocate General on 24.11.2012). (It is relevant to mention that the arrest memo of Chuka Devi which has been perused by this Court mentions that Chuka Devi had been arrested for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498A I.P.C.). In view of this compliance report, the complainant apprehending something amiss in the conduct of the Investigating Agency filed an Application No. 127/2013 praying for investigation to be transferred to another agency. Another application was moved for directing the prosecution of the Investigating Officer for making a false statement before this Court. A reply has been filed on 22.3.2013 by the State Government to the application filed by the petitioner and in the reply, it has been mentioned that the Investigating Officer never informed this Court that Section 304-B I.P.C. had been added in this case. It was also mentioned that on the basis of the recommendation, the decision was taken regarding challan to be filed against Chuka Devi for the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B and in the alternative 306 I.P.C. Thereafter the headquarter took a decision for putting up challan for Chuka Devi for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. and it is in the light of aforesaid developments that the 1.0. proceeded to close the investigation and filed a charge sheet dated 9.2.2013 in the Court of A.C.J.M., Ratangarh against the accused Chuka Devi for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. 15. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are specific allegations of the complainant and various other witnesses that the deceased Smt. Geeta was harassed and tortured by the accused persons on account of bringing less dowry soon before her death. He further submitted that the deceased was carrying a child of 8 months in her womb and there was no rhyme or reason for her to commit suicide unless she was harassed and tortured to such an extreme extent that she was left with no alternative but to end the life of herself and the child which she was carrying. Learned counsel referred to the statements of the witnesses Shyamlal (the petitioner) and Bhinva Ram. He urged that Shyamlal has specifically alleged that Geeta called him on 17.3.2012 and complained to him that all her matrimonial relations were harassing her in relation to the demand of dowry. Referring to the statement of Bhinva Ram, learned counsel submits that on receiving the information about the death of Smt. Geeta, the witness went to the house of Sugana Ram. He climbed down in the water tank and saw the body of Geeta lying in the water. When the witness tried to take the body out, Sugna Ram told the witness that he should drop the body back into the tank. Thereafter the witness came out of the tank and the police came to the scene of occurrence at about 9-10 in the morning on which the body was taken out of the tank Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of this witness clearly establishes that the intention of the accused was to do away with Smt. Geeta and that is why, the witness was asked to drop her back into the tank without making any efforts for taking her to the hospital. He submits that had the deceased been taken out of the tank timely, probably the child's life might have been saved. 16. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2011) SCC 182 and Kedar Narayan Parida v. State of Orissa reported in 2010(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 16. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2011) SCC 182 and Kedar Narayan Parida v. State of Orissa reported in 2010(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 427 , in support of the prayer to transfer the investigation. On the strength of the decision of the Apex Court in the case in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 6 SCC 332 , learned counsel submitted that even after the charge sheet is filed, the High Court has inherent powers to direct further investigation in the matter by C.B.I. He submitted that the conduct of the Investigating Agency in this case has been highly suspicious and unfair while investigating the case and thus this Court be pleased to direct that the further investigation of the matter be directed to be conducted by the C.B.I. Learned counsel has, however, given up his prayer regarding the prosecution of the Investigating Officer for making a false statement before this Court. 17. Mr. Anand Purohit, learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the Investigating Agency has acted in all fairness in conducting the investigation of the case. He submits that the charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of the legal opinion given by the legal experts. He further submitted that Vijay Kumar, the husband of the deceased was not present in the village from much before the death of Smt. Geeta. He further submits that the husband and wife had talked affectionately for about three hours on the fateful night and thereafter if Geeta took her mind and committed suicide for no good reasons, then the husband cannot be held responsible for the same. He thus, prays that no interference is called for in the matter while exercising the inherent powers of this Court. 18. Heard and considered the submissions advanced at the bar. Perused the record. 19. From a bare perusal of the record, the following facts can be enumerated as being admitted facts: 1. That Smt. Geeta was married to Vijay Kumar on 27.3.2011. 2. That Geeta was carrying a child of 8 months in her womb when she expired. 3. 18. Heard and considered the submissions advanced at the bar. Perused the record. 19. From a bare perusal of the record, the following facts can be enumerated as being admitted facts: 1. That Smt. Geeta was married to Vijay Kumar on 27.3.2011. 2. That Geeta was carrying a child of 8 months in her womb when she expired. 3. That Geeta met with unnatural death by drowning in her marital home within a period of one year from the date of her marriage. She died by drowning in the water tank in her matrimonial home. 4. The opening of the tank was found measuring 1.6ft. x 1.7ft. on site inspection. There are specific allegations of the complainant petitioner Shyamlal that Smt. Geeta was being continuously tortured by her in laws and the husband on account of bringing less dowry. Smt. Geeta called the witness on 17.3.2012 and informed him about the threat to her life and the demand of Rs. 4 lacs made by the in-laws. 5. That despite a statement made by the 1.0. to this Court regarding the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. having been added to the case, the Investigating Agency has chosen not to file a charge sheet against the accused for this offence. 6. That Vijay Kumar the husband of the deceased in relation to whom there was specific assurance given to this Court that efforts were going on to arrest him has not been charge sheeted in the case. 7. That F.I.R. was registered in March, 2012 and the only charge sheeted accused Chuka Devi was arrested by the Investigating Agency on 20.11.2012 after the displeasure expressed by this Court on the conduct of the Investigating Agency. 20. These facts are sufficient to prick the conscience of this Court that the Investigating Agency did not act fairly and bona fide in the case. The investigating carried out thus far is tainted and heavily biased in favour of the accused. 21. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the investigation has been conducted fairly in this case and the I.O. has tried to cover up and hush up whole case by inadequate, tainted lopsided investigation in a serious case of unnatural dowry death of a pregnant lady carrying a child of 8 months in her womb within a short span of one year from her marriage. The complainant had to run from pillar to post before one accused could be arrested in this case. For no good reasons, the accused persons against whom there are specific allegations of harassing and torturing the deceased in relation to demand of dowry have been left out from the array of the accused. Thus, for a just and fair investigation of the case, the file of the case has to be directed to be transferred to the C.B.I. for further investigation. 22. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The file of the case is directed to be transferred to the S.P.(E) C.B.I., Jodhpur who shall direct registration of regular case and thereafter shall have the investigation of the case carried out fairly under his own supervision. The Investigation Officer shall try and complete investigation within a period of six months from the date of this order.Petition allowed. *******