JUDGMENT SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. An antique bell, gifted by the Raja of Nepal to the then Viceroy of India in 1903, weighing around 30 Kgs fixed to a wooden frame weighing 50-60 Kgs displayed at the verandah of the main entrance of the Indian Institute of Advance Studies, Shimla was stolen in the morning of 22nd April, 2010. The antique bell has both aesthetic as well as carried antique value. On its being stolen, the authorities concerned lodged an F.I.R. comprised in Annexure P-2 with the Police Station concerned. The police authorities concerned on initiating an investigation into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 took to submit an untraced report comprised in Annexure P-5 before the Court concerned. Hence, the respondent No. 4 prayed to the Court concerned for a closure of the case. However, the petitioner filed objections comprised in Annexure P-6 before the Court concerned against respondent No. 3 seeking from the Court concerned the relief of acceptance by it of its proposal in the closure report of the stolen property being untraced, hence, investigations being ordered to be closed. The objections preferred by the petitioner herein to the proposal of respondent No. 3 in his closure report submitted before the Magistrate concerned for investigating into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 being ordered to be closed, were accepted by the Magistrate concerned who directed the respondent No. 4 to carry out further investigations into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2. 2. The petitioner through the instant writ petition has prayed that given the unsatisfactory besides tardy investigation having been carried out by the respondents No. 1 to 4 into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2, this Court direct that investigations being handed over to CBI. The respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a detailed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that after the Magistrate concerned having directed respondents No. 1 to 4 to carry out reinvestigation into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 they have thereafter taken to interrogate persons who have been previously involved in theft cases registered at Police Station, West Shimla. Further, there is a portrayal therein that certain persons who were earlier arrested in the case, namely, Harish Verma and Kharag Singh are being interrogated. Further, there is a portrayal therein that certain persons who were earlier arrested in the case, namely, Harish Verma and Kharag Singh are being interrogated. Moreover, Sushil Kumar, Dharam Pal, Lokesh and Laxmi Ram have also been disclosed in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the writ petition to have been interrogated as they are involved in the sale and purchase of antique items. Even, one G.S. Khera, undergoing judicial detention in Central Jail, Amritsar who is depicted therein to be involved in the sale and purchase of antique items along with Harish Verma, Prem Singh Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, is being concerted to be interrogated in connection with the theft of antique bell aforesaid stolen from the precincts of the Indian Institute of Advance Studies, Shimla. An F.I.R. qua the commission of theft of an antique bell from the precincts of Indian Institute of Advance Studies was lodged in the year 2010. The respondents No. 1 to 4 rather than having carried out an intensive and extensive investigation spread throughout the country by dispatching teams throughout the length and breadth of the country to nab the culprits, took to merely on suspicion interrogate Harish Verma, Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Kumar besides Chowkidar Kharag Singh. The efforts of respondents No. 1 and 2 to recover the stolen item were unsuccessful. Consequently, belatedly on 30.4.2013 an untraced report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate concerned which was, however, on objections to it having been preferred before it by the petitioner, rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, rather re-investigation was ordered to be carried out by the Judicial Magistrate in her renditions of 8.5.2015. Even the amplitude of re-investigation carried out by respondents No. 1 to 4 into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 is neither intensive nor extensive rather is confined to only re-interrogate the persons who previously were interrogated by the Investigating Officer concerned. Even the amplitude of re-investigation carried out by respondents No. 1 to 4 into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 is neither intensive nor extensive rather is confined to only re-interrogate the persons who previously were interrogated by the Investigating Officer concerned. The aforesaid factual matrix on record portraying the fact that since 2010 when investigations were launched in sequel to Annexure P-2 having been lodged by the petitioner herein through its authorized functionary before the Police Station concerned, the Investigating officer concerned inordinately prolonging the investigations up to 7.12.2013 yet even then his drawing a conclusion that the stolen property could not be recovered nor the culprits could be nabbed besides no clue was obtainable qua the culprits hence the filing of the closure report before the Magistrate concerned was deemed necessary. The imminent fact of the Investigating Officer concerned having consumed an inordinately long time since 2010 uptil December, 2013 when he drew satisfaction qua neither the stolen property being recoverable nor any clue qua its location being obtainable is ipso facto personificatory of lack of wherewithals with respondents No. 1 to 4 to either recover the stolen property or nab the culprits. The filing of the closure report before the Court concerned by the authorities concerned is articulative of failure of investigation by respondents No. 1 to 4 into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 besides even the further investigation carried out by respondents No. 1 to 4 in pursuance to the renditions comprised in Annexure P-7 of the Magistrate concerned smacks both of lack of professionalism, want of wherewithals besides theirs being yet clueless qua the location of the stolen property or the culprits who possess it especially in the face of theirs continuing to work on only qua those persons who even prior to the institution of the closure report before the Court concerned were interrogated by them. Obviously, the re-investigation by the respondents No. 1 to 4 appears not to acquire any dynamism, lacks initiative as well as is bereft of any innovation. As a corollary then, when respondents No. 1 to 4 have omitted to carry out a nationwide hunt to recover the stolen property besides nab the culprits necessarily then it bespeaks of slackness and indolence on their part. As a corollary then, when respondents No. 1 to 4 have omitted to carry out a nationwide hunt to recover the stolen property besides nab the culprits necessarily then it bespeaks of slackness and indolence on their part. Naturally then, this Court deems it fit and appropriate that respondent No. 5 who are possessed with all wherewithals as well as manpower to spread throughout the country to launch a nationwide hunt to locate the stolen property as well as the culprits that hence, respondent No. 5 be directed to henceforth through the S.P. CBI, Shimla carry out an intensive as well as extensive investigation into the offence. The writ petition is allowed and the investigation of the case is handed over to S.P. CBI, Shimla. All records be handed over within ten days by respondents No. 1 to 4 to S.P. CBI, Shimla to facilitate him to carry out the investigation into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2. Apposite status report be filed within three weeks thereafter. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.