JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for respondent No.11, Mr. H Gupta, learned Central Govt. Counsel and Mr. PN Choudhury, learned Senior Retainer Counsel, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 2. None has appeared for respondent Nos. 7 to 10 despite service of notice. 3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, more particularly, respondent Nos.1 to 5 to hand over investigation of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014, registered under sections 120B/306 IPC to the CBI for investigation. 4. Only essential facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are referred to hereunder. 5. Respondent No.7 is a co-educational school, situated at Darjeeling. It is stated that most of the students of the school are from Thailand and Bangladesh, though students from India are also present in significant numbers in the school. Petitioner's daughter, Debahuti Talukdar was enrolled in respondent No.7 school in Class-VIII in April, 2014. It is stated that the hostel where the petitioner's daughter was a boarder used to serve beef to the students without informing them about service of such food item. It is stated that petitioner's daughter had consumed beef on several occasions without knowing that she was being served beef in the meal. 6. When the petitioner's daughter became aware of the content of the meat being served, she protested in the month of May, 2014. Petitioner's daughter informed the petitioner about serving of beef in the hostel and on advice of the petitioner, she started taking her meal outside the campus. When the petitioner took up the matter with the hostel warden i.e., respondent No.9, the latter became very angry and brushed aside his objection. Petitioner had also contacted respondent No.9 over telephone and had requested him not to serve food items which were not acceptable to her daughter. It is stated that respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10 did not at all approved the objection raised by the petitioner's daughter and, more particularly, her consumption of food outside the hostel. 7. It is also stated that petitioner's daughter developed a strained relationship with a Thai girl, Ms. It is stated that respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10 did not at all approved the objection raised by the petitioner's daughter and, more particularly, her consumption of food outside the hostel. 7. It is also stated that petitioner's daughter developed a strained relationship with a Thai girl, Ms. Boma, another hostel boarder because of rivalry in the sporting arena within the school. After summer vacation when the petitioner's daughter had come back home to Guwahati, she returned to the school along with the petitioner, who made arrangement of food for his daughter outside the respondent No.7 school. 8. According to the petitioner, a false complaint was engineered by the school authority, more particularly, by respondent No.9 alleging that petitioner's daughter had stolen a mobile phone of the Thai girl, Ms. Boma. According to the petitioner, the mobile phone that his daughter was using was given by him to her after he had purchased it from Seoul, South Korea where petitioner had gone to participate in a Trade Fair. On 22.07.2014, respondent No.9 rang up the petitioner and asked him to take back his daughter from the school otherwise petitioner was told that the school authorities would have to expel her from the school on allegation of theft of mobile phone. 9. In view of aforesaid development, petitioner left for Darjeeling on 24.07.2014 and met respondent No.8 i.e., the Principal of the school. When he objected about serving of beef to the students, respondent No.8 told the petitioner that no student had any objection to serving of beef in the meal in the hostel. On the other hand, right to include beef in the school menu was insisted upon since the school was a minority institution. Regarding theft of the mobile phone, petitioner submitted a first information dated 25.07.2014 before the Sadar Police Station, Darjeeling, following which, a GD entry was made. On the other hand, neither the Thai girl, Ms. Boma had lodged any complaint about missing of her mobile phone nor the school authorities lodged any complaint before the police regarding missing of the mobile phone. 10. Petitioner has stated that his daughter had also informed him that respondent No.9 was physically exploiting minor girl residents of the hostel. 11. Ultimately, respondent No.8 expelled petitioner's daughter from respondent No.7 school on 25.07.2014 where-after, petitioner had to bring back his daughter home at Guwahati. 10. Petitioner has stated that his daughter had also informed him that respondent No.9 was physically exploiting minor girl residents of the hostel. 11. Ultimately, respondent No.8 expelled petitioner's daughter from respondent No.7 school on 25.07.2014 where-after, petitioner had to bring back his daughter home at Guwahati. On 21.08.2014, petitioner's daughter was found dead in her room. She was found in a state of hanging by her 'dupatta' in her bed room. During that period, petitioner was in Delhi in connection with his business work. Petitioner's son and others who had broken the door and had entered into the petitioner's daughter's room, took her to the nearby Dispur Nursing Home where she was declared dead on arrival. On coming to know about the unfortunate incident, petitioner rushed back to Guwahati. In the meanwhile, son of the petitioner lodged a first information before the Dispur Police Station on 21.08.2014. After the petitioner reached home and after the family could recover from the initial shock, he submitted supplementary first information on 05.09.2014. 12. Both in the first information as well as in the supplementary first information, respondent Nos.7 to 10 were mentioned as responsible for the unfortunate death of petitioner's daughter. A suicide note was also left behind by the deceased, which was enclosed with the FIR. In his supplementary FIR, petitioner referred to serving of beef on the unsuspected students, which had offended their religious sentiments. Representations were made by the petitioner before various authorities, including the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Human Resources Development, which in turn requested the Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education vide letter dated 19.01.2015 for necessary action regarding suicide of petitioner's daughter due to undue harassment and illegal action of the school authority. 13. In this connection, petitioner had also filed a writ petition (criminal) being WP(Crl.) No.32/2015 before the Supreme Court of India, which was, however, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate forum. 14. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 15. Separate affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 11. Subsequently, a common affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5. 16. In their common affidavit, respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 have stated that investigation of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014 is going on. 15. Separate affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 11. Subsequently, a common affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5. 16. In their common affidavit, respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 have stated that investigation of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014 is going on. It is stated that the Thai girl, who had lodged the complaint of theft of her mobile phone was examined by the investigating officer and the Thai girl stated that her stolen mobile phone was recovered from the daughter of the petitioner. It is stated that the deceased was not expelled from the school, but was allowed to be taken back home by the petitioner till examination. It is stated that on 21.08.2014, Sri Kumar Bhargav Talukdar, elder son of the petitioner and brother of the deceased, lodged a first information before the Dispur Police Station to the effect that his younger sister aged about 13 years had committed suicide in her bed room at about 10.30 a.m. On the basis of such FIR, UD Case No.97/2014 was registered where-after, investigation was carried out. Post mortem report opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem suicidal hanging. Following receipt of subsequent FIR, Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014, under sections 120B/306 IPC was registered. Investigation was endorsed to SI Rituparna Bania. Senior Superintendent of Police, Guwahati City had supervised the investigation of the case. IO had visited Darjeeling for further investigation. Respondent No.8 i.e., Principal of the School was arrested where-after, he was thoroughly interrogated. Respondent No.9 also appeared before the IO along with a copy of anticipatory bail order passed by the Court. It is stated that on 17.10.2014, SI Rituparna Bania was transferred from Dispur Police Station in the interest of public service. But, he was finally released from Dispur Police Station only on 27.12.2014. Thereafter, investigation of the case was endorsed to SI Sri Ujjal Goswami. It is also stated that Sri Ujjal Goswami was subsequently transferred and in his place Sri Nirod Deka, SI has been entrusted with the investigation of the case. IO had recorded the statements of respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10. According to the affidavit, investigation revealed that the deceased had close intimacy with a Class-XI student, Rekib Hussain. Additional FIR has been treated as an additional statement of the informant. IO had recorded the statements of respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10. According to the affidavit, investigation revealed that the deceased had close intimacy with a Class-XI student, Rekib Hussain. Additional FIR has been treated as an additional statement of the informant. It is contended that investigation is going on without any hindrance from any quarter and that the current IO is competent and capable of leading the investigation to its logical conclusion. 17. Affidavits filed by respondent No.6 and respondent No.11 are also on similar lines. In his affidavit, respondent No.6 has stated that beef was optional for the students of the hostel and no one was forced to consume beef. 18. Petitioner has filed reply-affidavit contesting the stand taken by the respondents and reiterating the averments and prayer made in the writ petition. 19. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that investigation being conducted by the State police is simply meandering along with no end in sight. He submits that fair and proper investigation into the case is not being conducted and there is no possibility of petitioner and the family members of the deceased getting justice. Instead of focusing on the actual causes leading to the unfortunate and unnatural death of petitioner's daughter, the investigation has digressed to a different tangent altogether. Almost two years have gone by with the investigating authority nowhere near making a break through. He submits that petitioner and the family members of the deceased have no faith in the investigation that is being carried out by the respondents and, therefore, for ends of justice, investigation of the case should be handed over to the CBI. 20. While learned Govt. Advocate, learned Central Govt. Counsel and learned Senior Retainer Counsel, CBI have not made any submission contesting the stand of the petitioner and have left it to the discretion of the Court, Mr. J Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for respondent No.11 have vehemently objected to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that investigation into Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014 have not been carried out in a fair and proper manner. Mr. Borthakur has produced the voluminous case record of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014. J Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for respondent No.11 have vehemently objected to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that investigation into Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014 have not been carried out in a fair and proper manner. Mr. Borthakur has produced the voluminous case record of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014. Both the learned counsel submit that contrary to what is being argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, investigating authorities have found materials, which may not be palatable to the parents of the deceased girl. Transfer of IO was a routine administrative measure and nothing more should be read into it. All angles are being investigated into. Investigation is being conducted in a fair and proper manner and conclusion of investigation is not very far. No case for handing over the investigation to the CBI is made out. Referring to the various Apex Court judgments, including in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and KV Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 480 , Mr. Roy, learned counsel submits that CBI investigation is not for the mere asking. Only in rare and exceptional cases, a constitutional court would direct taking over investigation from the State police by the CBI. Going by the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said to belong to such a category warranting CBI investigation. 21. In his reply, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation in the present case would cover two States i.e., Assam and West Bengal and, therefore, CBI would be in a better position to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. He submits that in a similar case of suicide of a young girl student, the Supreme Court had directed CBI investigation i.e., in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2015) 9 SCC 795 . Therefore, present is a fit case for investigation being conducted by the CBI. 22. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the case record of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014. 23. For obvious reasons, Court would refrain from discussing the details of the case diary since investigation into the case has not been concluded. 24. Mr. Therefore, present is a fit case for investigation being conducted by the CBI. 22. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the case record of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014. 23. For obvious reasons, Court would refrain from discussing the details of the case diary since investigation into the case has not been concluded. 24. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for respondent No.6 may be correct in his submission that though the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the power to transfer investigation from the State police to CBI, the Court would not ordinarily direct the transfer of investigation on the mere asking of an affected party. But having said that, it has to be borne in mind that no hard and fast rule of universal application can be laid down governing jurisdiction of the constitutional courts as to whether CBI inquiry should be directed or not. It is dependent on the satisfaction of the Court on the materials presented before it on a case to case basis. In Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has noted that when a reasonable apprehension is expressed that investigation may be shoddy or suffers from incompetency, the Court may step in and exercise its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sensibility of the victim or the next of kiln is not an irrelevant consideration in such a situation. The Apex Court pointed out that transfer of investigation does not necessarily imply that the new investigation agency will falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. This is what the Supreme Court has said in Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra): - “11.Such being the importance of fair and proper investigation, this Court has in numerous cases arising out of several distinctly different fact situations exercised its power of transferring investigation from the State/jurisdictional police to the Central Bureau of Investigation under Delhi Police Establishment Act. There was mercifully no challenge to the power of this Court to direct such a transfer and in my opinion rightly so as the question whether this Court has the jurisdiction to direct transfer stands authoritatively settled by the Constitution bench of this Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights. 12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights. 12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on the Court's satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can possibly be prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extra ordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee agency will necessarily much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls that are common place when State police investigates matters of some significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the independence of that agency from such or similar other considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent. 13. Having said that we need to remind ourselves that this Court has, in several diverse situations, exercised the power of transfer. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent. 13. Having said that we need to remind ourselves that this Court has, in several diverse situations, exercised the power of transfer. In Inder Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court transferred investigation to the CBI even when the investigation was being monitored by senior officers of the State Police. So also in R.S. Sodhi Advocate v. State of U.P. and Ors., investigation was transferred even when the State police was doing the needful under the supervision of an officer of the rank of an Inspector General of Police and the State Government had appointed a one member Commission of Inquiry headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court to enquire into the matter. This Court held that however faithfully the police may carry out the investigation the same will lack credibility since the allegations against the police force involved in the encounter resulting in the killing of several persons were very serious. The transfer to the CBI, observed this Court, "would give reassurance to all those concerned including the relatives of the deceased that an independent agency was looking into the matter. 14. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. CBI, wherein this Court upheld the order transferring investigation from the State Police to the CBI in connection with a sex scandal even when the High Court had commended the investigation conducted by the DIG and his team of officers. In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, this Court directed transfer of the chit fund scam in the states of West Bengal and Orissa from the state police to the CBI keeping in view the involvement of several influential persons holding high positions of power and influence or political clout. 15. Suffice it to say that transfers have been ordered in varied situations but while doing so the test applied by the Court has always been whether a direction for transfer, was keeping in view the nature of allegations, necessary with a view to making the process of discovery of truth credible. What is important is that this Court has rarely if ever viewed at the threshold the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI with suspicion. What is important is that this Court has rarely if ever viewed at the threshold the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI with suspicion. There is no reluctance on the part of the Court to grant relief to the victims or their families in cases, where intervention is called for, nor is it necessary for the Petitioner seeking a transfer to make out a cast iron case of abuse or neglect on the part of the State police, before ordering a transfer. Transfer can be ordered once the Court is satisfied on the available material that such a course will promote the cause of justice, in a given case.” 25. Present is a case where a young girl of 13 years had died under mysterious circumstances. A case has been registered under 120B/306 IPC. The issue is sensitive not only because of the unfortunate and unnatural death of a young girl, but also because of the circumstances sought to be attributed by the parents of the deceased for the death though this Court would hasten to add that these are only at the stage of allegation. 26. Justice AK Goel in his concurring separate judgment held as follows: - “22. It is true that the prayer for transfer of investigation from the State Police to CBI can be allowed only in rare and exceptional circumstances when fair investigation by the State Police does not inspire confidence on account of any external influence or otherwise as held in State of WB v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights. There can be no cast-iron determined by the Court by taking an overview of the fact situation of a particular case. In the present case, we do not consider it necessary to blame the college authorities or the local police but we are also unable to reject the apprehension of the petitioner and his prayer for transfer of investigation. The death of a young girl student has taken place in mysterious circumstances. According to the petitioner, the statement of the girl was not recorded even though it could have been done and thus, truth has not come out. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, it will be appropriate that the matter is investigated by CBI.” 27. The death of a young girl student has taken place in mysterious circumstances. According to the petitioner, the statement of the girl was not recorded even though it could have been done and thus, truth has not come out. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, it will be appropriate that the matter is investigated by CBI.” 27. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the circumstances leading to the unfortunate and unnatural death of the young girl is investigated by an independent agency having all India presence, like the CBI, lest a lingering sense of remorse remains that death of the petitioner's daughter was not effectively investigated upon leading to failure of justice. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merit, Court is of the view that it would be appropriate if the matter is investigated by the CBI. Accordingly, respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 are directed to handover the case record of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014 to the CBI, Guwahati office within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 28. Let a copy of this order may be furnished to Mr. PN Choudhury, learned Senior Retainer Counsel, CBI for doing the needful. 29. Records produced by Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for respondent No.11 is returned back. 30. Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.