JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.117/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City North for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 354 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. This Court on 13.7.2018 had passed the following order:- "Counsel for the petitioner has contended that son of the petitioner is posted at Delhi in Income Tax Department. It is stated that complainant daughter in law of the petitioner was residing at Delhi with her husband. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is posted as a teacher in District Dausa and it is submitted that son and daughter in law of the petitioner, were having a separate residence and mess at Delhi and therefore, petitioner had no occasion to interfere in their domestic affairs. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that twice the Investigating Agency has come to conclusion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. It is contended that now the investigation has been assigned to third Investigating Officer. This court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1141/2018, Tara Chand Sharma and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. had passed the following order:- "The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying that a direction be issued to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to conduct fair and impartial investigation in case arising out of FIR No.0161/2017 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B I.P.C. Number of petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are listed before this Court. It has been observed that without passing any detailed speaking order, on drop of hat, or on the whim and fancy of the supervisory officer, in the midst of investigation, when it has reached at a sensitive stage, investigating officer is changed. Change of the horse midstream is not appreciated. Supervisory officer ought to give reasons as to why investigating officer is required to be changed. Supervisory officer should examine the case diary and taking note of the deficiencies in the investigation should give guidance to the investigating officer as to in which direction, investigation ought to move. In the present case in particular, no such procedure was followed. Supervisory officer ought to give reasons as to why investigating officer is required to be changed. Supervisory officer should examine the case diary and taking note of the deficiencies in the investigation should give guidance to the investigating officer as to in which direction, investigation ought to move. In the present case in particular, no such procedure was followed. When accused Tara Chand Sharma approached D.C.P. (West), Jaipur, he transferred the investigation to SHO, Harmada. Later when complainant approached, D.C.P. (West), Jaipur, he transferred the investigation to ACP, Jhotwara. Everything should not be done due to the approach made by complainant or accused as it will show the police in poor light, especially when Jaipur Police with the limited infrastructure is performing a yeoman's job in the city, which is having numerous cases pertaining to property dispute. Property dispute always has a monetary consideration and consequences. Supervisory officer should be careful and cautious while changing the investigation officer. It has been noted that number of times, inquiry or investigating officer has been changed. Sometimes when accused has been found guilty, on the asking of accused investigating officer or inquiry officer has been changed sometimes when a police officer has recommended that Final Report in negative form be submitted on asking of complainant investigating officer or inquiry officer is changed. Due to change of investigating officer or inquiry officer not only course of investigation change but result too change sometimes totally opposite to the earlier view. Similarly the next officer who is assigned investigation or inquiry formulate contrary view. How many time investigation should be conducted, how many times result of investigation should change, is something on which higher officer i.e. Commissioner of Police should ponder so that trust of the people in the premier investigating agency is not lost. Again and again if investigating officer or inquiry officer is changed and consequently with the change of officer, report also changes. This it itself lower the image of the police and cause trust deficiet. In the above context, this Court had asked Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur to remain present in the court. Mr. Again and again if investigating officer or inquiry officer is changed and consequently with the change of officer, report also changes. This it itself lower the image of the police and cause trust deficiet. In the above context, this Court had asked Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur to remain present in the court. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur has stated that until there are compelling reasons, investigating officer shall not be changed and if the investigating officer is to be changed, a detailed speaking order will be passed giving reasons, pointing out deficiencies in the investigation and reasons shall be spelt as to why investigating officer ought to be changed. He has also assured this Court that in all pending investigations, which are more than one year old, report of investigation shall be submitted within two months after conclusion of investigation in the concerned court of competent jurisdiction from the receipt of certified copy of the order. He has submitted that in case there are compelling reasons, then only under the orders passed by him, extension of time to conclude the investigation shall be given beyond period of two months pertaining to cases where investigation is more than one year old. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur has very fairly submitted that investigation ought to be prompt and swift so that alert police officer is able to gather all evidence. This court appreciate the statement made by Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur. There is no need to say that if investigating officer is not alert and investigation is not conducted at the earliest, notable leads will be lost and vital pieces of evidence will wither away. Therefore, in investigation, time is essence. Thus, based on the statement made by Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, this Court issue following directions:- a) That no investigating officer shall be changed until supervisory officer pass a detailed speaking order. b) That in case supervisory officer come to conclusion that investigating officer is to be changed, in the order to be passed, he shall point out deficiencies in the investigation and also give guidance to the officer to whom investigation is to be transferred. b) That in case supervisory officer come to conclusion that investigating officer is to be changed, in the order to be passed, he shall point out deficiencies in the investigation and also give guidance to the officer to whom investigation is to be transferred. c) That in all pending cases in the Commissionerate of Jaipur, where the investigation is one year old, report of investigation shall be filed with the opinion of the investigating officer in the competent court within two months from receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, same cannot be done, extension of time to conclude the investigation shall only be granted by Commissioner of Police by passing a reasoned order. So far as, present case is concerned, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur has assured this Court that he will transfer the investigation of this case to his office and same shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. He has assured this Court that report of investigation along with the opinion of the investigating officer shall be submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction within one month from receipt of certified copy of the order. In view of directions issued above, and assurances given by Commissioner of Police, noted as directions, the present petition is disposed of. A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and necessary compliance." Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, ld. PP, is not in position to acquaint this court as to why Investigating Officer was changed and investigation for third time was assigned to another person. Issue notice to the respondents for 31.07.2018. Meanwhile, investigation with the third Investigating Officer shall remain stayed. Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, ld. PP, is directed to file an affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, stating reasons therein as to why Investigating Officer was changed. Copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP, under the seal and signature of Court Master for onward transmission and necessary compliance." 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Commissioner of Police has filed the affidavit. Copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP, under the seal and signature of Court Master for onward transmission and necessary compliance." 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Commissioner of Police has filed the affidavit. He has stated that the first investigating officer was not able to complete the investigation and due to administrative exigencies, the investigation of the case was assigned to the second investigating officer and later on the prayer made by the complainant the investigation was assigned to gazetted police officer. The Commissioner of Police in his affidavit has stated that no investigating officer came to conclusion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. V.S. Badhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted as Teacher at District Dausa, whereas his son and daughter-in-law initially stayed at Delhi and later at Gurgaon. 5. Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has denied this fact and has submitted that it is specifically stated in the FIR that the complainant never accompanied her husband at the place of posting and she was staying with her father-in- law at Dausa. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that it is one of the grievance of the complainant that she was never permitted to join her husband at the place of posting. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that son of the petitioner on 8.5.2017 filed a divorce petition levelling allegations of cruelty and as a counter blast thereto, the impugned FIR has been lodged. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Whether the complainant was residing at Dausa or with her husband at Gurgaon or at Delhi, is a dispute question of fact and same cannot be determined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 as the same requires evidence. 9. So far argument that the impugned FIR was lodged as a counter blast to filing of divorce petition is concerned, it is a well accepted fact that the Indian woman wait till last to save marriage. It is only when it dawns upon woman that the marriage cannot be saved, then only FIR is lodged. 10. In the present case after divorce petition was filed, respondent aggrieved wife was bound to take recourse to lawful remedy available to her. 11. It is only when it dawns upon woman that the marriage cannot be saved, then only FIR is lodged. 10. In the present case after divorce petition was filed, respondent aggrieved wife was bound to take recourse to lawful remedy available to her. 11. Therefore, in a matrimonial matters, filing of divorce petition or petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be taken into consideration to construe the FIR was lodged as counter blast. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition, therefore, the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments available to him before the trial court, however, taking into consideration the relationship and age of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has retired as a Teacher, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial court is exempted subject to the following conditions:- i) That the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial court that he shall appear before the trial court at the time of framing of charges, recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and at the time of delivery of the judgment. ii) That in the undertaking filed the petitioner shall specifically state that any evidence recorded in his absence, but in presence of his counsel, shall be binding upon him. iii) That the accused petitioner shall also undertake to appear before the trial court as and when called by the trial Judge. iv) It is further ordered that upon appearance of the petitioner before the trial court, the trial court shall accept regular bail bonds of the petitioner along with bonds to be furnished by the sureties and the personal regular bail bonds furnished by the petitioner and bonds to be furnished by the sureties shall enure during the pendency of the trial.