JUDGMENT & ORDER : DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the status report received from SHO, P.S Devli vide letter dated 19.12.2017, which is taken on record. 3. This criminal writ petition has been filed by Smt. Sunita, wife of deceased Bhanwar Lal with the prayer to transfer the investigation of FIR No. 332/2016, P.S Devli registered for the offence under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC to CBI or CID (CB) or any other specialised investigation agency with further direction to arrest the real culprits and to file charge-sheet against them. 4. On perusal of the status report as also on the basis of submissions made, it is found that a complaint was filed on 08.11.2016 by Smt. Sunita Devi under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C alleging that her husband Bhanwar Lal went with accused Morpal & Faru and has not returned back. His mobile No. 8875143698 is also not responding. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Ramphool informed her on 18.10.2016 that dead body of Bhanwar Lal was found in the Copper Dam in front of Bisalpur Mahadev Temple. 5. After investigating the matter, FR (negative report) came to be filed on 23.02.2017 in the court of competent jurisdiction i.e. C.J & J.M No. 1, Devli, District Tonk. After perusing the FR, he ordered for further investigation on 11.09.2017 on certain points. Thereafter again, the matter was investigated and FR came to be filed again on 27.10.2017 with the finding that deceased Bhanwar Lal has drawn in the Bisalpur Dam and has not been murdered by anyone. The postmortem report was also annexed with the FR wherein the medical board consisting of three medical officers has given opinion that deceased Bhanwar Lal has died due to asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning. The death is reported to have taken place about 3-5 days ago. 6. The status report dated 19.12.2017 contains the result of investigation done on the pertinent queries made by CJ. & J.M No. 1, Devli, District Tonk vide his order dated 11.09.2017 and findings have been mentioned in the status report that the call details of Bhanwar Lal (Mobile No. 8875143698) were also traced and the last calls which were made by him were with Smt. Maya Devi, who was known of Bhanwar Lal. Bhanwar Lal was working as labour on the vegetable garden of said Maya Devi. Bhanwar Lal was working as labour on the vegetable garden of said Maya Devi. Nothing noticeable came forward there from. The investigation note of Morpal was annexed with the FR, wherein it has been mentioned that he and deceased Bhanwar Lal went for fishing to the dam on the fateful night. When they saw the headlight of some vehicle coming to them and realising that fishing was prohibited in the dam area, both of them jumped into water. Ambalal could swimming across the dam but Bhanwar Lal could not. After some days, his dead body was found on the surface of the water. The finding of the investigation also find support by the postmortem report annexed with the FR, wherein the cause of death is mentioned as asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning. 7. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the court that the statements of the witnesses have disclosed that because Bhanwar Lal was wearing winter clothes, he could not swim across the water, whereas the photographs produced by him show that no winter clothes were worne by him, but he was wearing jeans and baniyan. In my view, this anomaly cannot be considered serious enough to create a suspicion about the postmortem report wherein cause of death of deceased Bhanwar Lal has been clearly mentioned. The findings arrived at by the investigating officer do not indicate to any conspiracy or offence having been committed in regard to the death of deceased Bhanwar Lal. No such suspicion has been indicated in the writ petition by the petitioner also. 8. In light of the facts mentioned above, no justification is found to transfer the investigation to CBI or CID (CB) or to any other specialised investigation agency of the FIR No. 332/2016, P.S Devli. However, it is further observed that FR (negative report) is still pending consideration before the court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant is at liberty to file protest petition, if so advised. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.