ORDER : Sunil Thomas, J. 1. The petition is filed by the defacto complainant in SC No. 1908/2011 of the Sessions Court, Kollam aggrieved by the order dated 31/3/2016 directing the investigating officer, who laid the final report, to proceed with the further investigation in compliance with the order of that Court in Crl. M.P. No. 1902/2015. 2. The case relates to the death of a four and half year old child who was subjected to unnatural offence by the accused on 7/1/2006 and thereafter committed the murder of the child. He also caused disappearance of the evidence of crime. On the basis of the crime registered, investigation commenced. When the investigation was going on, father of the victim had filed W.P.(C) No. 13425/2006 for change of the investigating officer. This Court allowed the writ petition with a direction that CI of police himself shall conduct the further investigation. Thereafter, another writ petition viz. W.P(C) No. 3356/2007 requesting for an investigation by the CBCID, This Court dismissed the petition and permitted the investigating officer to submit the final report. Accordingly, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, H.H Wing, Kollam, took over the investigation After investigation final report was laid for offences punishable under Sections 201,377 and 302 IPC. Towards the close of the prosecution evidence, the defacto complainant filed Criminal M.P. No. 1902/2015 seeking further investigation on the allegation that several material witnesses were not included in the witness list and many materials recovered were not produced in the court. After hearing both sides, the court allowed the petition and by the order dated 23/7/2015 directed the investigating officer, who laid the final report, to conduct the further investigation and to complete the investigation. Since there was delay in filing of the final report, notice was issued for the personal appearance of the investigating officer. On 24/2/2016, the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Economic Offences, Section 1, Kollam, appeared and filed a report stating that while the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, HH Wing, Kollam was conducting the further investigation, the Addl. Director General of Police (Crimes) based on the order of the Minister for Home and Vigilance, directed him to take over the investigation. Accordingly, he took over the investigation. The statement filed by the State in this Crl. MC. Director General of Police (Crimes) based on the order of the Minister for Home and Vigilance, directed him to take over the investigation. Accordingly, he took over the investigation. The statement filed by the State in this Crl. MC. Indicates that it was on the basis of a request by the father of the deceased child, that the investigating officer was changed by the order of the Ministry of Home & Vigilance,dated 25/11/2015. 3. The learned Sessions Judge holding that though the Government is having authority to change the investigating officer without leave of the court, once the direction is given to an officer to conduct further investigation in a criminal case, it shall not be changed without the permission of the Sessions Court. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police was directed to handover the investigation to Deputy Superintendent of Police with a direction to complete the in investigation and to file a final report on or before 23/5/2016. This order is under challenge at the instance of the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Evidently, the investigation of the case has a long history and still the trial has not concluded due to various interim orders and the change of officers. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge by order in CMP NO. 1902/2015 had directed the investigating officer to file final report after conducting the further investigation. Subsequent investigation was conducted by a superior officer viz. superintendent of police. Apparently, the Government has the authority to change the officers. The records available indicate that the fact that the Superintendent of Police had taken over the investigation was brought to the notice of the Court below by the reports submitted from time to time. Annexure A-IV is the report dated 24/2/2016 filed by the Superintendent of Police followed by another report of the progress in the investigation dated 5/4/2016. However, it is true that a formal permission was not sought by the Superintendent of police to take over the investigation. Evidently, the investigating officer was changed by an administrative officer and a senior officer was the investigating officer. In the absence of anything to show that it will cause substantial prejudice or affect the investigation, I feel that a change of the investigating officer in the meanwhile may not be in the interest of justice. Evidently, the investigating officer was changed by an administrative officer and a senior officer was the investigating officer. In the absence of anything to show that it will cause substantial prejudice or affect the investigation, I feel that a change of the investigating officer in the meanwhile may not be in the interest of justice. In the light of the above, the interim order is set aside and the Superintendent of Police, who was conducting the investigating as on the date of the impugned order, shall continue with the investigation and submit the report accordingly. Investigation shall be completed at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or within such time as may be extended by the Sessions Court.