ORDER : Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner Krishan Gopal, author of FIR No. 651/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City(West) for offences under Sections 195, 196, 465, 477A, 471 and 120B IPC with the prayer that investigation thereof be entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation(for short ‘CBI’) and additionally praying for direction to the respondents to provide safety and security to the petitioner and his family and competent authority be directed to take appropriate legal and disciplinary action against the erring police officials and held judicial enquiry against them for their unlawful and unbecoming conduct. 2. Facts as emerging from the memorandum of the petition are that marriage of elder son of the petitioner; namely Sunil Saradhna was solemnized with Bhoomika, daughter of Devi Dutt Gurjar at Bikaner on 19.11.2008. The petitioner received an information on 21.07.2015 that some untoward has happened with his daughter-in-law Bhoomika. He along with his wife immediately started from Bikaner to Jaipur and reached Jaipur at 7.30 P.M. on that very day. When they reached at Jaipur, they learnt that their daughter-in-law Bhoomika has committed suicide. Devi Dutt Gurjar, father of Bhoomika on 22.07.2015 lodged a false criminal case against the petitioner, his wife and son upon which FIR No. 697/2015 was registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for offences under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC on the basis of alleged suicide note left by Bhoomika on her mobile phone. The investigation agency without any investigation of the call details and the verification of the persons to whom Bhoomika was in communication and without any retrieval of data of chatting, messages on various mobile applications as well as chat history on mail, facebook account and from bank statements and more importantly without verifying the creation of suicide message is conducting one sided defective investigation on the behest and under influence of complainant party. Wife of the petitioner made a representation to DCP (West), Jaipur and when nothing happened, she filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 4360/2015 before this Court. Wife of the petitioner made a representation to DCP (West), Jaipur and when nothing happened, she filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 4360/2015 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 03.09.2015 directed the investigating officer to consider representations, documents and the evidence already made available to him and also to undertake investigation of the case in the light of the prayer made in the petition then only to decide to file report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 3. In compliance of order dated 03.09.2015 passed by this Court, wife of the petitioner gave a detailed representation enclosing therewith copy of the petition, order dated 03.09.2015, earlier representations, documentary evidence to the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur in person on 14.09.2015 with a copy thereof to investigating officer. Investigating officer in complete violation of order passed by this Court and without conducting investigation on the points specifically raised by wife of the petitioner in the representations, filed an application before Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan(for short ‘the Magistrate’) on 22.09.2015 to obtain arrest warrant against her. When she learnt about the fact that the aforesaid application has been filed concealing order passed by this Court dated 03.09.2015, she herself approached the Magistrate by filing application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. on 07.10.2015 praying for cancellation of arrest warrant. Learned Magistrate on that application vide order dated 08.10.2015 summoned the progress report. Investigating officer produced the progress report on 15.10.2015 stating that in view of order of this Court dated 03.09.2015, letter dated 29.09.2015 was written to DCP, Jaipur(West) to take the assistance of technical institution, FSL, ATS for the checking of phone of deceased in relation to the messages, what’s App messages, e-mail, facebook messages deleted prior to her death. It was further stated that in relation to the call details of deceased, various mobile numbers be investigated by sending separate officers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this conduct of the investigating officer clearly shows that nothing substantial was done in compliance of order of this Court dated 03.09.2015 and the investigating agency was acting in a bias and hurriedly manner by moving an application for procuring arrest warrant of wife of the petitioner. Looking to the conduct of the investigating officer, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.10.2015 declined to extend the arrest warrant issued under Section 37 of the Police Act. 4. Mr. Looking to the conduct of the investigating officer, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.10.2015 declined to extend the arrest warrant issued under Section 37 of the Police Act. 4. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel submitted that father of the deceased Devi Dutt is very close to Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, presently Additional Director of Police(Law & Order) in Rajasthan State, who at his behest is manipulating various evidences in conspiracy with Devi Dutt and other persons and also the postmortem report, which is quite contrary to panchnama. It is argued that various photographs taken just prior to death of Bhoomika from 15.07.2015 to 21.07.2015 available in the CCTV footage of the place of incident would clearly show that postmortem report was manipulated. I-Phone of Bhoomika seized from the place of incident on 22.07.2015 allegedly having the suicide note was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 21.12.2015 which in its report dated 11.03.2016 opined that said suicide note was modified on 28.09.2015. S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur moved an application on 27.03.2016 along with one C.D. and report of FSL which makes it clear that alleged suicide note was modified when I-Phone of Bhoomika was in the custody of police. This is also corroborated from the statement of Pradhuman Kumar, Constable in CIU Cell of DCP, Jaipur(West) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.10.2015 wherein he has admitted to have taken print out of the suicide note which was filed along with the charge sheet. This suicide note was included in the investigation file on 30.09.2015. It is argued that the police has thus, indulged in tempering with the suicide note and act of forgery. It is argued that various data of facebook, mail and messages which were also made available by the FSL in C.D. and the printout of the same also shows that on 21.07.2015 one message at 11.06 P.M., “Google Verification” of which is 808123 and also other message at 11.15 P.M. “One Time Password (OTP) for logging into Airtel my account is 2012” is incoming message having the validity of 15 minutes. This shows that on 21.07.2015 just to create a message in the mobile phone of deceased Bhoomika a password was obtained and a completely fabricated suicide note was created and therefore the same was modified in the custody of police. 5. Mr. This shows that on 21.07.2015 just to create a message in the mobile phone of deceased Bhoomika a password was obtained and a completely fabricated suicide note was created and therefore the same was modified in the custody of police. 5. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel argued that mischief of this level could not have been done by the investigating officer and his team without direction and active assistance of Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order). The manner in which the investigating agency has acted is also evident from the fact that the respondents without waiting for result of FSL and making compliance of order of this Court dated 03.09.2015, not only harassed the wife of the petitioner, but also filed charge against her on 12.01.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the deceased used to regularly talk to various persons on her cell phone in the late night which is evident from the call details and most of the time she used to converse with one Asjad Rehmani of Hyderabad on cell phone No. 9652282399. Call details for the period from 23.05.2015 till the deceased died reveal that the deceased talked to Asjad Rehmani for as long as 8302 minutes between 10.00 P.M. to 6.00 A.M. apart from talking to Nizam Syed, Munna Rehmani, Deepak Salve and Sahilendra Singh. The police has not interrogated all these persons. 6. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that when the petitioner went to lodge FIR at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur of the aforesaid act of tampering with evidence and forgery on 02.07.2016, the respondents refused to register the same. The petitioner then sent FIR by registered post to Respondent No. 6, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (West) and when nothing happened, he filed criminal complaint in the competent court and only then matter was sent for investigation to Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur upon which FIR No. 651/2016 was registered. Since the petitioner has named Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur and other police officials, he has no hope for any fair and impartial investigation in the aforesaid FIR by the local police. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed that investigation in this case may be enstrusted to CBI to ensure fair, effective and impartial investigation in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed that investigation in this case may be enstrusted to CBI to ensure fair, effective and impartial investigation in the matter. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1322 ; State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2011 Cr.L.R.(SC) 805; Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 202; Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 758 ; Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and Ors.,2016 Cr.L.R. (SC) 321; Chandra Babu Alias Moses v. State through Inspector of Police and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 774 ; State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors., 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 221; Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 626 ; Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 65 ; Surinderjit Singh Mand and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2016 Cr.L.R. (SC) 773 and judgment of this Court in Smt. Lajwanti Bhatia v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 32/2015 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4383/2014 decided on 11.02.2016 along with two other connected petitions). 7. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death on 21.07.2015 in her matrimonial home. As per the opinion of the medical board which conducted postmortem examination of her body, the cause of death was Asphyxia resulting from ante-mortem hanging. Her dead body was brought to SMS Hospital at 3.10 P.M. on 21.07.2015 from her matrimonial home. One Pradeep on duty compounder of SMS Hospital gave information of this fact that she was declared dead at 3.20 P.M. to Police Control Room. Police Control Room informed to Police Station Vaishali Nagar, whereupon the SHO, Police Station Vaishali Nagar along with other police personnel reached mortuary of SMS Hospital and informed the parents of the deceased, who told him that they would submit a report after reaching the police station. S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar then reached residence of accused and inspected the same in the presence of Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police and thereafter, locked and sealed the place. S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar then reached residence of accused and inspected the same in the presence of Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police and thereafter, locked and sealed the place. He made an entry of this fact in rojnamcha after arrival at police station. Written report was submitted by Devi Dutt, father of the deceased after reaching Jaipur from Hyderabad on 22.07.2015 at 10.15 P.M. alleging that his daughter was subjected to cruelty with regard to demand of dowry by her husband and mother-in-law and she informed him in this regard, whereupon, he tried to satisfy the demands of his son-in-law and mother of son-in-law, but the demands continued. The police registered FIR No. 697/2015 for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. During investigation of said FIR, the police recovered mobile phone (I-Phone) of the deceased from her bed room at 11.20 A.M. on 22.07.2015 vide seizure memo. At the time of seizure, a suicide note was found in “Notes” application of the phone, which was also noted n the seizure memo. Accused Sunil was arrested on 23.07.2015. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that even when aforesaid FIR was pending, Smt. Vijaya Devi, mother-in-law of deceased and an accused in said case preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4360/2015 before this Court praying for appointment of independent investigation officer to conduct the fair and impartial investigation of aforesaid FIR after consideration of the representations and documents submitted by her including the investigation on the call details of mobile number used by deceased and also from the unknown family persons to whom deceased having frequent call history, including investigation on the messages and chat history on the mobile phone numbers, mail, facebook account used by deceased and also to investigate as to the transaction in the bank account of deceased that who are the persons to whom the money was transferred and for what purpose the same was transferred and also on the other documents and contentions submitted through the representation. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that there was no allegation in that petition about Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police(Law & Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur that he was very close to Mr. Devi Dutt, father of the deceased or vice versa. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that there was no allegation in that petition about Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police(Law & Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur that he was very close to Mr. Devi Dutt, father of the deceased or vice versa. This Court vide order dated 03.09.2015 disposed off the petition directing the investigating officer of the case to consider the representations, documents and evidences already made available to him on the side of the accused and also to undertake the investigation of the case in the light of the prayer of the petitioner therein and only then decide to file report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is, thereupon, that wife of the petitioner Vijaya Devi submitted representation on 14.09.2015. Investigating officer in compliance of aforesaid order dated 03.09.2015 passed by this Court thoroughly investigated the matter and recorded statements of Ms. Mona Syed Asad Rehmani daughter of Shri Syed Asad Rehmani, Shri Syed Nizam and Shri Syed Asad Rehmani(all residents of Hyderabad) who inter alia stated that the deceased was a close friend of Faiza Lumna daughter Syed Asad Rehmani and both being close friends, used to speak to each other. Mobile Sim No. 9652282399 and 7702040089 were used by Faiza and Mona, both daughters of Syed Asad Rehmani. Mona was provided above stated SIM card by her employer, which she deposited in the office of the employer while leaving the job. Learned Additional Advocate General read over the statements of aforesaid witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 9. It is argued that statement of Shailendra son of Ganesh resident of Hyderabad was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who stated that Mobile No. 9619881113 was provided to him by his employer company whereas mobile no. 9666353096 was his personal number and that he and the deceased were batch mates in college and neighbours as well and therefore, they were good friends. Due to family terms and college friends, they used to have telephonic conversations with each other and she also told him about harassment by her in-laws. Mobile No. 7093330108 was found to have been used by one Asjad, an employee of Nizam Syed resident of Hyderabad, a travel consultant. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that mobile of the deceased was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination after taking a print out of suicide note. Mobile No. 7093330108 was found to have been used by one Asjad, an employee of Nizam Syed resident of Hyderabad, a travel consultant. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that mobile of the deceased was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination after taking a print out of suicide note. The print out was taken by Constable Pradhyuman Kumar prior to this and the same was submitted to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar on 30.09.2015. Statement of Pradhyuman Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C was also recorded during investigation. The documents and representations submitted by Smt. Vijaya Devi were also considered by investigating officer and it is thereafter a charge sheet was filed initially against accused Sunil for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC, while keeping the investigation pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet against Smt. Vijaya Devi was filed for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A, 406 IPC. In that charge sheet, aforementioned details and investigation made by the investigation officer has also been referred to. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that perusal of the representations submitted by Smt. Vijaya Devi would reveal that in none of these any allegation with regard to alleged use of influence by Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) or his acting in connivance/conspiracy with the complainant of the case in any manner has been made. It is argued that when the main case was pending committal in the Court of Magistrate, accused Sunil Saradhna moved an application alleging that investigation was not being made as per direction of this Court and prayer was made for directing investigating officer to produce entire material pursuant to such investigation before the Court and if such investigation has not been made, explanation of investigating officer may be called and till then, the case may not be committed. Learned Magistrate after considering the application of the accused vide its order dated 27.01.2016 directed S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur to submit the details of the action taken in relation to the examination of mobile phone from FSL/ATS as also, the details of the investigation made in relation to the mobile numbers mentioned in the charge sheet. Learned Magistrate after considering the application of the accused vide its order dated 27.01.2016 directed S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur to submit the details of the action taken in relation to the examination of mobile phone from FSL/ATS as also, the details of the investigation made in relation to the mobile numbers mentioned in the charge sheet. It was thereafter that FSL report and copy of CD received from FSL were provided by S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur on 04.04.2016 and 23.04.2016 respectively, copies of which were also provided to counsel of the accused. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that the Magistrate upon being satisfied of the steps taken by the investigating officer finally committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge(Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The accused thereafter filed two applications before the trial court. In application dated 05.05.2016, copy of CD dated 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 stated to have been seized by the police and copies of call details of the accused and deceased were sought and in application dated 20.05.2016, data of deceased’s phone was prayed to be submitted before the Court by retrieving the same, from the mobile phone sent to FSL, Jaipur to enable to make arguments on the question of framing of charge. Even in those applications, no allegation to the fact of investigation of the case being influenced by Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) in any manner was made. The trial court directed investigating officer to appear before it. Mr. Neeraj Pathak, ACP, Sadar, Jaipur, investigating officer appeared before the trial court on 24.08.2016 and produced the report. Thereafter, the trial court deferred the matter for 06.09.2016 and again called the investigating officer to explain the issue with regard to CCTV footage. Said applications are still pending before the trial court. Meanwhile, Smt. Vijaya Devi, wife of the petitioner moved second bail application bearing No. 2066/2016 before this Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing arguments including those which have been made in the present petition was not persuaded to grant indulgence of bail to her and rejected her bail application vide order dated 20.05.2016. It is only thereafter, the petitioner, husband of Smt. Vijaya Devi and father of accused Sunil Saradhna filed a criminal complaint by leveling allegations against Mr. It is only thereafter, the petitioner, husband of Smt. Vijaya Devi and father of accused Sunil Saradhna filed a criminal complaint by leveling allegations against Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur in the Court of Magistrate which upon being sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, FIR No. 651/2016 was registered. Investigation of the aforesaid FIR was entrusted to Mr. Bhuri Singh, Sub Inspector, who required presence of complainant at Police Station with his witnesses vide letter dated 05.08.2016, but it was received unserved with the endorsement that the complainant was not residing at the Jaipur address. The investigating officer again vide letter dated 29.09.2016 informed the complainant to appear before him, but he never did so. There is no justification for transferring the investigation in the present matter to CBI when already the police is investigating the matter. In fact, the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation in fair and impartial manner. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571 ; Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 ; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 770 and K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 480 . 13. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 14. Since learned counsel for the both the sides have made detailed arguments on the merits of the case, in order to ensure that investigation in the present matter is not adversely affected, this Court does not deem it appropriate to make any detailed discussion of the arguments so as to record any finding on such arguments as it may prejudice case of either of the parties. 15. Although submission of learned Additional Advocate General may be true that the petitioner and his wife, who is accused in the case, did not make any allegation of tampering with evidence and influencing the investigation of the FIR against Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director of General of Police (Law & Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur in the representations, which they made during investigation. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director of General of Police (Law & Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur in the representations, which they made during investigation. His further submission is that wife of the petitioner did not make such allegation when she earlier filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 4360/2015 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 03.09.2015 directed the investigating officer to consider representations, documents and the evidence already made available to investigating officer and also to undertake investigation of the case in the light of the prayer made in the petition then only to decide the file report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that when the case was pending at the stage of committal in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, accused Sunil Saradhana moved an application alleging that the investigation was not being made by the investigating officer as per the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2015, the Magistrate vide order dated 27.01.2016 directed S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur to submit the details of the action taken in relation to the examination of mobile phone from FSL/ATS as also the details of the investigation made in relation to the mobile number mentioned in the charge sheet. FSL report and copy of CD received from the FSL were provided by S.H.O., Police Station Vaishali Nagar on 04.04.2016 and 23.04.2016 respectively and their copies were also made available to counsel of the accused. It is thereafter that the learned Magistrate proceeded to hear the arguments on committal of the case and then committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 16. According to learned Additional Advocate General, no allegation was made against Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur even at the stage of committal. Two more applications were thereafter submitted by the accused before the trial court. One application dated 05.05.2016 demanding copy of CD dated 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 stated to have been seized by the police and the copies of the call details of the accused and deceased and another application dated 20.05.2016 praying for submission of data of the deceased’s phone before the court by retrieving the same from the mobile phone sent to FSL, Jaipur. The trial court on those applications directed investigating officer to appear before the Court. Then, investigating officer, Neeraj Pathak, ACP, Sadar, Jaipur appeared before the trial court and produced relevant record for the perusal of the Court. The trial court deferred hearing of those applications to 06.09.2016, on which date, investigating officer was again called to explain issue with regard to CCTV footage. Those applications are said to be still pending before the trial court. According to learned Additional Advocate General, even in those applications, no allegation has been made against Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is only thereafter that the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Magistrate which was sent to Police for investigation in which, the petitioner, for the first time, made allegations against Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case or otherwise into allegations made by the petitioner as the issue is still pending investigation, but in totality of the circumstances, this Court is not convinced that the matter is such where investigation ought to be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation, particularly when the police is seized of investigation at an advanced stage. However, in the facts of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that investigation of the present FIR be entrusted to CID(CB) with a further direction that investigation of the same shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, who shall directly report to Additional Director General of Police, CID(CB), Rajasthan, Jaipur or Director General of Police, Rajasthan and not to any officer including Mr. N.R.K. Reddy, Additional Director General of Police(Law and Order), Rajasthan, Jaipur. 18. With the aforesaid direction and observation, present petition is disposed off. 19. Stay application also stands disposed off. 20. Application No. 16346/2016 filed by applicant Devi Dutt seeking his impleadment as party respondent in the present matter is also disposed off. Petition and stay application disposed of as above.