Judgment : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant and he filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 8160/2009, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to conduct fresh investigation and inquiry in Crime No. 398/2007 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode Town Police Station, Thiruchengode under Section 174 of CrPC and the said writ petition, after contest, came to be dismissed on 21.03.2012 and aggrieved by the same, has field this writ appeal. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the father of a girl by name N. Divya and she was undergoing Plus one (+1) in Vidya Vikas Higher Secondary School (For Girls), Thiruchengode, Namakkal District and she stayed in the hostel of the school and continued her studies. The petitioner would further state that the school run by the fifth respondent was reopened on 25.06.2007 and her daughter contacted her parents through phone in husky voice stating that the rooms in the hostel did not have proper ventilation facilities and more particularly in Room No. 507 where she was staying, there was no fans and has only one window and the inmates were not allowed to open the window and more than 16 students were compelled to occupy a room measuring less than 100 sq.ft. and further reported that there were no enough bathrooms and sometimes she used to take bath in the toilet. 3. On 01.07.2007, the parents of the girl, namely the appellant and his wife, visited the school and on seeing the parents, their daughter hugged them and cried and it was sarcastically commented by the Warden of the hostel, namely Amudha. The appellant also sought permission of the hostel authorities to keep a pedestal fan in the room of his daughter and it was refused and sometime thereafter, the girl came back to Chennai and went back to school on 16.07.2007 and asked her parents to see her on 22.07.2007-an holiday and also a visitor’s day. The appellant/writ petitioner would further state that his daughter, during the course of her holidays from 09.07.2007 to 15.07.2007, made series of complaints against the way in which the hostel of the school is being maintained as well as the poor infrastructure prevailing in the said school. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner would further state that his daughter, during the course of her holidays from 09.07.2007 to 15.07.2007, made series of complaints against the way in which the hostel of the school is being maintained as well as the poor infrastructure prevailing in the said school. 4. On 16.07.2007, the appellant received a phone call at about 11.30 p.m from the hostel authorities of the sixth respondent school informing that his daughter has fainted and she was taken to a private hostel and was asked to contact the Chief Warden and immediately, he contacted the Chief Warden, who informed the appellant that she was taking her daughter to a local hospital and refused to reveal the name of the hospital and the appellant and his wife took a decision to proceed to Thiruchengode and thereafter, they were informed that her daughter had expired. The appellant reached the Thiruchengode Government Hospital where the body of her daughter was kept and thereafter, went to the fourth respondent Police Station and lodged an F.I.R. based on which the case in Crime No. 398/2007 was registered under Section 174 CrPC. 5. The appellant, after seeing the body of the deceased, reached the fourth respondent school at about 7.00 a.m and made enquiries and was informed by the Headmistress Ms. Jayasree that his daughter had fainted and he was also taken to the room in which she fainted and fallen and on suspicion that the death of his daughter was unnatural, the appellant wanted to know the cause of the death and further, he was not allowed to contact the Chief Warden or his daughter’s classmates and roommates. The appellant would further state that their personal enquiries reveal that the Chief Warden, on the date of the death of her daughter, had severely punched his daughter and inflicted strong blows on her stomach and hip for not attending the night study and as a consequence only, she had fainted and fallen. The appellant would further state that their personal enquiries reveal that the Chief Warden, on the date of the death of her daughter, had severely punched his daughter and inflicted strong blows on her stomach and hip for not attending the night study and as a consequence only, she had fainted and fallen. The appellant has also contacted the fourth respondent and narrated the events and since no fruitful action was taken, he made a complaint against the school authorities to the third respondent, namely the Collector of Namakkal, Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal, Superintendent of Namakkal and Human Rights Commission and since his efforts did not yield any result, he filed Crl.O.P. No. 9864/2008 on the file of this Court for transfer of investigation to CBCID and the fourth respondent has filed his counter stating that the investigation has been completed and the final report has been sent to RDO and this Court passed an order that if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to him to seek appropriate remedy before the competent jurisdictional Criminal Court. 6. It is the specific case of the appellant that the third respondent/RDO did not conduct any proper enquiry under the provisions of CrPC and the investigation has also not been done in a fair and proper manner and the Postmortem Report would disclose that his daughter has not died under normal circumstances and for the reasons best known to the fourth respondent/Investigating Officer, he has sided with the school authorities and not done proper investigation and though it was brought to the knowledge of the superior authorities, they have not done anything and therefore, filed the writ petition praying for transfer of investigation. 7. The third respondent has filed his counter stating among other things that inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased/appellant’s daughter after observing necessary formalities by the Inspector of Police in the presence of Panchayatdars and the witnesses were also examined during inquest and the deceased had died on account of pre-existing disease. 8. 7. The third respondent has filed his counter stating among other things that inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased/appellant’s daughter after observing necessary formalities by the Inspector of Police in the presence of Panchayatdars and the witnesses were also examined during inquest and the deceased had died on account of pre-existing disease. 8. The fourth respondent, namely the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode Police Station has filed his counter denying the averments and would submit that the inquest has been conducted by him in the presence of Panchayatdars and during inquest, five witnesses were examined including the appellant and Postmortem was also done by the Civil Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Thiruchengode, who opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to haemostatic and gangrene of momentum and large intestine and has also categorically stated that the gangrene is not possible by fisting or kicking on the stomach and unlikely without any external injuries over the abdominal wall. It is further stated by the fourth respondent that after completion of holidays, the deceased/daughter of the appellant came back to school on 15.07.2007 and expired on the night hours of 16.07.2007 and there is absolutely no chance for her roommates, Warden, Principal or others to study about her character on her ailments and there is evidence to show that she was having a pre-existing disease and took treatment at her parents house from 09.07.2007 to 14.07.2007 and further stated that the respondents 5 to 7 cannot be held responsible for the death of the daughter of the appellant. 9. The fifth respondent has filed the counter on her behalf and also on behalf of the respondents 6 to 7 and would state that the daughter of the appellant attended the class only for 12 days from 25.06.2007 to 07.07.2007 and she left the hostel from 09.07.2007 on the ground that she was unwell and returned to school at the morning hours on 16.07.2007 and would further state that her younger brother was studying in Matric school belonging to the very same management, after satisfying with the infrastructure facilities. It is further stated by the fifth respondent that on 16.07.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., the daughter of the appellant fainted and the Warden took her to a Doctor by name Nirmala at Tiruchengode and she was examined by the said Doctor and the daughter of the appellant complained uneasiness in breathing and she was directed to be taken to Dr. Nellaiyan, who found that the pulse was very weak and therefore advised the Warden to take her to the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode and they reached the hospital at 11.15 a.m and the Doctor, who examined, found her dead on arrival. It is also contended by the fifth respondent that in Crl.O.P. No. 9864/2008 filed by the petitioner for transfer of investigation, the petitioner/appellant did not whisper anything about the conduct of the school and hostel authorities, but for the first time in the writ petition, he has chosen to make such a kind of allegation. It is also contended by the fifth respondent that the school as well as the hostel are very big with proper infrastructure facilities and they cannot be held responsible for the death of the appellant’s daughter and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The learned Judge, on consideration of the materials placed before him and the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner and the respondents, has held that the writ petitioner was not in a position to show prima faice that the death of his daughter was due to unnatural circumstances and this Court, vide order dated 16.07.2008, has also rejected the request of the writ petitioner for transfer of investigation and the petitioner has not been in a position to show as to why no petition had been moved before the Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned or before this Court. The learned Judge, citing the said reasons, has dismissed the writ petition, vide order dated 21.03.2012 and aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal. 11. Ms. The learned Judge, citing the said reasons, has dismissed the writ petition, vide order dated 21.03.2012 and aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal. 11. Ms. A. Lobamudra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that as per the Postmortem Report, death of the deceased occurred due to gangerene of omentum and such injury would not have occurred under normal circumstances or on account of preexisting disease, unless the daughter of the appellant was violently dealt with by punching on her stomach. As per the final opinion given by the Doctor who conducted the autopsy, the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to Hemorrhage and gangerene of omentum and large intenstine about 8-18 hours prior to autopsy and the final opinion also substantiated the fact that the death of his daughter was not due to pre-existing disease/unnatural causes. So far as the stand of the respondents 4 to 6 that by virtue of the order dated 16.07.2008 in Crl.O.P. No. 9854/2008, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the final report was sent by the fourth respondent to the third respondent, who, for the reasons best known to him, yet to forward the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and therefore, he cannot file any protest petition as to the Closure Report filed by the fourth respondent and considering the passage of time, it may not be justified in directing the appellant to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court and instead, this Court may pass appropriate orders to transfer the investigation. 12. Mr. V. Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 has produced the Case Diary relating to Crime No. 398/2007 registered by the fourth respondent and would submit that the statement of the concerned witnesses were recorded during inquest and the investigation revealed that the death of the daughter of the appellant was due to natural causes on account of pre-existing disease and after thorough, fair and proper investigation only, a decision has been taken to refer the case and accordingly, Final Report was also filed before the third respondent and therefore, it cannot be faulted with. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7 would vehemently contend that immediately when the daughter of the appellant fainted, she was taken care of by the school authorities and the Warden immediately took her to a private hospital and the Doctor advised them to see the Senior Doctor, namely, Nellaiyan and the girl was taken to his hospital and on examination, he found that the pulse was very feeble and therefore, advised the Warden to take her to the Government Hospital, Thiruchengode and she was also taken to the said hospital and the duty Doctor attached to the said Government hospital examined the girl and found that she died on arrival. As regard the allegation of non-availability of proper infrastructure facilities in the school and in the hostel, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that excellent facilities are available in the school as well as in the hostel and congenial atmosphere is also prevailing so as to enable the students, especially the students who are studying in the hostel, to concentrate on their studies. The learned counsel would further submit that none of the students are treated badly by the school authorities as well as by the Warden. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent that in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 9854/2008, the present writ appeal is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the same. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent placed reliance upon the decision in GangadharJanardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Others AIR 2004 SC 4753 : (2004) 7 SCC 768 . 14. This Court paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7. 15. A perusal of the material available on record, especially the postmortem final opinion and Viscera Report would disclose that the daughter of the appellant died due to shock due to Hemorrhage and Gangerene of Omentum and large intestine about 8-18 hours prior to autopsy. 15. A perusal of the material available on record, especially the postmortem final opinion and Viscera Report would disclose that the daughter of the appellant died due to shock due to Hemorrhage and Gangerene of Omentum and large intestine about 8-18 hours prior to autopsy. The Doctor who conducted autopsy also opined that it could not have occurred unless the deceased had received some external blows on her body. It is the stand of the respondents 3 and 4 that the deceased suffered pre-existing disease and she also took treatment between 09.07.2007 and 15.07.2007 to treat the Urinary Track infection. It is the specific case of the appellant that the conditions prevalent in the school as well as in the hostel are not at all good and the hostel also lacks basic facilities and further stated that when he and his wife went to the hostel, right in front of them, her daughter was treated badly by the Chief Warden. 16. This Court has also perused the Case Diary produced by the learned Special Government Pleader and the fourth respondent did not conduct investigation as to the pre-existing disease suffered by the daughter of the appellant and though in his counter affidavit took a stand that the deceased suffered Urinary Track infection from 09.07.2007 to 14.07.2007, has not put any specific question to the Doctor during the course of investigation as to whether such an illness would lead to Hemorrhage and Gangerene of Omentum and large intestine and the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, also opined that gangrene is not possible by fisting or kicking on the stomach and unlikely without any external injuries over the abdominal wall. 17. A perusal of the Postmortem Certificate would indicate that there was no external injury on abdominal wall and the Investigating Officer, namely the fourth respondent has not taken any steps to find out as to the reason for Hemorrhage and Gangerene of Omentum and large intestine, which resulted in the death of the daughter of the appellant. It is the specific case of the appellant that a fair, impartial and proper investigation has not been done by the fourth respondent and in spite of the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the higher authorities, no action was taken. 18. It is the specific case of the appellant that a fair, impartial and proper investigation has not been done by the fourth respondent and in spite of the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the higher authorities, no action was taken. 18. In R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P and Others AIR 1994 SC 38 , accusations were directed against the local public personnel and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency was looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility and however, faithfully the local police may carryout the investigation, the same would lack credibility since the allegations were against them. 19. It is the vehement submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6 that in the light of the order dated 16.07.2008 made in Crl.O.P. No. 9864/2008, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the remedy open to the petitioner/appellant, if any, is to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a protest petition and placed reliance upon the decision in GangadharJanardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). 20. It is well settled position of law that if the investigating agency files a closure report, the defacto complainant shall be put to notice and it is open to him/her to file a protest petition before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and if the Magistrate is convinced, he may order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC or accept the closure report. 21. In the case on hand, the Final Report was submitted by the fourth respondent to the third respondent and it is yet to reach the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that the death of the appellant’s daughter took place on 16.07.2007 and seven years had elapsed and at this distant point of time, nothing fruitful would result in giving a direction to the third respondent to forward the Final Report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, which is under law can order only further investigation. 22.1. 22.1. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya 2002 (2) CTC 610 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 2225 : (2002) 5 SCC 521 , to that extent the power of the High Court in directing an enquiry and investigation by CBI can be used was considered. In paragraph 5, it is held thus: “5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient materials to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI.” 22.2. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights 2010 (2) CTC 84 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 1476 : (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 169, it is held that only in exceptional cases investigation can be transferred from the local police to the CBI and the said power should be exercised with great care and caution sparingly and not as a matter of routine. 22.3. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat AIR 2011 SC 1804 : (2011) 5 SCC 79 : (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 270, it is held that if there is improper investigation by the State Police and high Police Officials are involved, direction for investigation by an independent and specialized agency like CBI can be ordered. 22.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in VinayTyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762 , has considered the kinds of investigation and held that this Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC can order fresh/de novo/reinvestigation and it can directed to be done only in exceptional cases and unless the unfairness of the investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the Court, the Court should be reluctant to interfere in such matters to the extent of quashing an investigation and directing a fresh investigation. 22.5. 22.5. In Government of Tamil Nadu v. Muthulakshmi 2006 (2) CTC 285 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 561, the Division Bench of this Court, relying on the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, held that unless the materials placed before this Court disclose a prima facie case calling for investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely on the basis of some allegations made by the party. 23. A perusal of the Case Diary would indicate that inspite of the opinion of the Doctor who conducted the autopsy that Gangrene is not possible by fisting or kicking on the stomach and unlikely without any external injuries over the abdominal wall and the perusal of the Postmortem Report would indicate that there is no external injury over the abdominal wall, by the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. 24. The deceased girl, after fainted, was taken to a Doctor by name Nirmala and on her advise to Dr. Nellaiyan and he having found that the pulse was feeble, advised the Warden to take her to the Government Hospital, Thiruchengode and the Duty Doctor attached to the said Government Hospital found that the girl found dead on arrival and the Investigating Officer, though stated in the counter that the deceased was having pre-existing disease, may be in the form of Urinary Track infection for which she took treatment from 09.07.2007 to 14.07.2007, did not investigate further as to how the said injury had occurred and also took a stand that the school authorities are not at all responsible for the death of the deceased. Even as per the own admission of the respondents 4 to 7, the girl, before her death, was staying in the hostel and therefore, they are under obligation to explain as to the illness she suffered especially for the reason that she being a hostelite, was under the care and custody of the school as well as the hostel authorities. 25. 25. The appellant has also made series of allegations against the Chief Warden and lack of basic facilities and amenities in the school as well in the hostel premises and specifically averred that right in-front of him and his wife, her daughter was scolded and treated badly by the Chief Warden and the request for keeping a pedestal fan in the room where the deceased was staying, was also turned down. The Girl, at the time of demise, was aged about 16 years and the appellant had a fond hope that she would perform well and come up in life and bring laurels and glory to the family, but unfortunately died at an younger age. 26. A perusal of the Case Diary would also indicate that the statement of the witnesses were recorded in a routine manner and as to the sustainment of injury by the deceased, which ultimately resulted in her death, no proper investigation has been done. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that fresh/de-novo investigation is necessary and the previous materials collected by the previous Investigating Officer cannot be acted upon and therefore, transfer of investigation to some other investigating agency is absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. 27. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.03.2012 made in W.P. No. 8160/2009 is set aside and the investigation in Crime No. 398/2007, registered by the fourth respondent under Section 174 CrPC, is transferred to CBCID. The Additional Director General of Police Crimes/CBCID is directed to nominate an officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct fresh/de-novo investigation in respect of the above said crime number and also monitor the same periodically and the fourth respondent, after nomination of the officer, is directed to transfer the Case Diary for further course of action. No costs. Appeal allowed.