ORDER : 1. By filing this petition under the provisions of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner- original complainant is seeking direction(s) to the following effect:- “(A)Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction to transfer investigation to respondent no.4- Central Bureau of Investigation, in respect of FIR No.I/63/2016 dated 29.12.2016 registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad, in the interest of justice; (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondent no.4 to initiate discreet inquiry in respect of the subject matter and more particularly in respect of FIR No.I/63/2016 dated 29.12.2016 registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad, in the interest of justice; (C) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted; (D) …........” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has lodged one FIR against the present accused, being C.R. No.I-63 of 2016 dated 29.12.2016, which is registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 452, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that this FIR was earlier not registered by the police and therefore, he had to approach this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No.9505 of 2016 and due to the order passed by this Court, the said FIR was registered by Ranip Police Station. It is his contention that one of the accused Mr. Ashwin R. Padhiar is serving as Police Inspector with State Reserve Police Zone-II, Krishnanagar and due to that, the police is not investigating the case properly and at his instance, they are shielding the accused persons. According to him, on the date of incident, all the accused conspired and they had in the late night broken open the lock of the premises of the wife of the petitioner and taken away dwelling articles from the house. It is his contention that his wife Bhavnaben is daughter of deceased Somabhai Patel, who has expired on 24.5.2013. It is also contended that Bhavnaben is sole heir of the deceased. However, one Mr. It is his contention that his wife Bhavnaben is daughter of deceased Somabhai Patel, who has expired on 24.5.2013. It is also contended that Bhavnaben is sole heir of the deceased. However, one Mr. Ishwarbhai Mangalbhai Prajapati, who was serving with Somabhai Patel, has created so-called Will in his favour and thereafter, he filed necessary proceedings before the Civil Court for getting succession/probate of the said Will. On coming to know these facts, the same has been contested and therefore, the suit is pending before the Civil Court as to decide the legality of the Will. It is also contended that during pendency of the proceedings, in connivance with Police Inspector Mr. Padhiar, sale deeds inter-se have been executed and therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint. 3.1. It is also contended that Mr. Padhiar as well as the other accused have filed criminal petitions before this Court for quashing of the said FIR, which have been rejected by this Court. 3.2. It is also contended that from the record, it transpires that the investigating agency is in connivance with all accused in respect of the offences are not taking any action and there is lack of credibility to investigate the present case. According to him, as the investigation is not properly being carried out and it is under connivance of one of the accused, who is a Police Inspector, the matter is required to be investigated by any other agency and it may be transferred to CBI. It is prayed by him to allow this petition. 4. Affidavit-in-Reply is filed by V.B. Patel, Police Inspector, Ranip Police Station, wherein he has contended that the FIR has been registered and the investigation is going on and till the date of filing of the affidavit, 12 statements have been recorded and 4 panchnamas have been drawn. It is also contended that the disputed Will has been collected and the investigating agency had also collected the natural handwriting of deceased Somabhai. It is also contended that request was made to the present petitioner to provide natural fingerprint, if available, but, the petitioner was not in a position to provide the same and even the investigating officer also could not collect the natural fingerprint of the deceased. It is also contended that request was made to the present petitioner to provide natural fingerprint, if available, but, the petitioner was not in a position to provide the same and even the investigating officer also could not collect the natural fingerprint of the deceased. According to him, as natural signature was available, it was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar for expert handwriting opinion and after verification, it is opined that there is a signature of the deceased on the disputed Will. Therefore, according to him, there is no question of forgery. While referring to the statements of Notary Shri Kanubhai Patel and others, he has stated that the disputed property was evicted in favour of Ishwarbhai Prajapati and he became owner and therefore, there is no question of any illegal trespass by him. Of-course, he has submitted that CCTV footages have been collected by the police authority, wherein it was found that some persons were breaking the lock of bouncy gate and some accused were breaking the locks which have been applied to the gate but as they became owner of the property by the Will, there is no illegal trespass. According to him, nobody has come up till date to support the version of the complainant that some accused have beaten him. According to him, the investigation is going on. 5. In reply to this affidavit, the petitioner has also filed Affidavitin- Rejoinder, and has contended that it is admitted fact that the accused who were arrayed in FIR are seen in CCTV footage; committing offence of criminal trespass and theft as well as lurking house trespass by night as well as taking over the possession of dwelling house with illegal criminal intention is made out. He has also contended that legality of the Will is under challenge before the Civil Court and therefore, the investigating officer cannot jump to the conclusion that the accused have become owner of the property. According to him, this fact itself supports the version of the complainant that the investigation is not independent and it is under connivance of one of the accused who is Police Inspector. According to him, this fact itself supports the version of the complainant that the investigation is not independent and it is under connivance of one of the accused who is Police Inspector. Regarding non-availability of the fingerprint of the deceased, it is contended that the petitioner has not submitted the natural fingerprint of the deceased and this fact further establishes the factual malafide and sheer attempt to shield all the accused who have committed such heinous crime, inasmuch as if the testator of the Will, as alleged, has expired on 24.5.2013, then in such eventuality, after lapse of four years, no fingerprint as such would be available with the petitioner. It is also contended that this aspect establishes complicity of the investigating officer to illegally shield the accused to the extent that the documents reflecting the signature of the deceased Somabhai have been provided and muddamal receipt evidencing submitting of such documents is also drawn. It is also contended that the statement of one notary cannot be a defence to commit such offence as alleged. He has also contended that it is well within the knowledge of the investigating officer that the complaint is registered before Aslali Police Station against said notary Mr. Kanubhai Patel while he was acting as notary and even his licence of notary was suspended. According to him, in view of these factual aspects, it is established that there is no free and fair investigation carried out by the investigating officer and therefore, the prayer sought for by him may kindly be granted. 6. The petitioner has also filed further affidavit stating the same facts. 7. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Percy Kavina with learned advocate Mr. Prabhav A. Mehta for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent No.1- State and learned advocate Mr. Shah for Mr. Ashok A. Purohit for newly added respondent No.5. Perused the material filed with the present petition. 8. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the petition itself. He has stated that there is one property belonging to one Somabhai Patel and Bhavnaben is his daughter, who is the wife of the present petitioner. Perused the material filed with the present petition. 8. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the petition itself. He has stated that there is one property belonging to one Somabhai Patel and Bhavnaben is his daughter, who is the wife of the present petitioner. It is contended that she is the only heir of deceased Somabhai Patel and accordingly, the property belongs to her and she and her husband were visiting the said property and the property was in their possession and according to him, one Ishwarbhai has alleged that the deceased has executed a Will in his favour regarding the said property and on the basis of that, he has initially transferred the property to one Police Inspector and thereafter, he transferred it to Ishwarbhai back and thereafter, it was further transfered by Ishwarbhai on the basis of the Will to another person. He has also submitted that regarding the Will, probate proceeding is going on and it is contested by Bhavnaben and due to that, civil suit to decide legality of the Will is pending before the concerned Civil Court. He has also contended that the purported Will is alleged to be signed by late Somabhai Patel but there is a serious dispute. According to him, the present accused in connivance with each other have broken open the locks of the gate as well as the premises and have taken away the dwelling articles from the house and therefore, the complainant has initially lodged the complaint before the police station but the same was not registered as one of the accused is Police Inspector. He has also contended that as the FIR was not registered, the complainant had to approach this Court and due to the order of this Court, ultimately, the complaint was registered. But, according to him, the investigation is not properly being carried out and it is under the influence of the accused Police Inspector and the entire investigation is going on in the direction to shield all the accused. He has contended that as per the affidavit of the investigating officer, presence of the accused in CCTV footage was found and therefore, this is a clear case of trespass in the night. He has contended that as per the affidavit of the investigating officer, presence of the accused in CCTV footage was found and therefore, this is a clear case of trespass in the night. He has also contended that the conduct of the investigation can be seen from the fact that though the dispute as to the Will is still pending in the Civil Court, the investigating agency has dared to state that the accused became owner and therefore, there cannot be any offence of trespass. According to him, the conduct of the investigating agency is reflected from the affidavit of the investigating officer Mr. V.B. Patel and the manner in which the investigation is going is nothing but to help the accused. According to him, this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent power for transferring the investigation to CBI. He has prayed to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the State has contended that the original Will has been collected during the investigation and the same has been sent to FSL and as per the report of the FSL, signature on the original Will is of deceased Somabhai. She has also contended that the probate proceeding is going on and by virtue of the Will, one of the accused has become owner of the property. While referring to the statement of one Savitaben and others, she has stated that from those statements, the allegation made in the FIR is not fully supported. She has also contended that the statements of the attesting witnesses of the Will have also been recorded and the investigation is still going on and the Police Inspector of Ranip Police Station is investigating the same. She has submitted that in view of the affidavit-in-reply of the investigating officer, the petition may be dismissed. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for Mr. Ashok A. Purohit for the newly added respondent No.5 has contended that he has purchased the disputed property by way of registered sale deed by paying full consideration and he is a bonafide purchaser. According to him, the complainant has abused the process of law by filing the criminal complaint. He has also contended that the investigation is still going on and therefore, inherent power may not be exercised in this case. 11. According to him, the complainant has abused the process of law by filing the criminal complaint. He has also contended that the investigation is still going on and therefore, inherent power may not be exercised in this case. 11. Now, it is well settled principle by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that fairness of investigation is important not only for the accused but even for the victim and it is also well settled that an order transferring any investigation from local police to any other police should not be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has leveled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice. 12. It is also well settled that in an adversarial system of administration of justice, fairness of investigation is the very first requirement for the fairness of a trial. A trial based on a partisan motivated, one sided, or biased investigation can hardly be fair. That is because while the trial itself may be procedurally correct, the essence and the purpose thereof may be vitiated by an unfair or ineffective investigation. Further, proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law. A proper and effective investigation into a serious offence and particularly in a case where there is no direct evidence assumes great significance as collection of adequate materials to prove the circumstantial evidence becomes essential. 13. It is also well settled that the investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. It is also well settled that not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also well settled that the investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the Court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation. 14. Considering all these well settled principles of law regarding fair investigation, on the perusal of the material placed with this matter, it clearly appears that though the investigating officer has found the CCTV footage, wherein the accused have been found therein in late night opening the locks of the gate and the door of the premises, instead of doing proper investigation, the investigating officer has opined that as the accused have become owner of the property, and therefore, there is no question of any trespass. This very basis of the opinion of the investigating officer creates doubt about the fairness on the part of the investigating agency. The investigating officer should have acted himself in an unbiased manner. 15. Further, the affidavit of the investigating officer reveals that he has relied on the statements of the attesting witnesses and one notary to come to a conclusion that the accused have become owner of the property and the alleged Will is a genuine Will of the deceased. But, the investigating officer has lost sight of the fact that the alleged Will is not declared as genuine by the concerned Civil Court and the dispute regarding genuineness of the Will is still pending with the Civil Court. It appears from the record that the entire investigation is carried out by the agency at the behest of the accused, one of whom is the Police Inspector. It appears from the record that the entire investigation is carried out by the agency at the behest of the accused, one of whom is the Police Inspector. The entire conduct of the investigating officer and the papers reveal that though they have no right to adjudicate upon the ownership right of any particular person, which is being agitated in the Civil Court, the investigating officer has dared to make an affidavit to the effect that the accused have become owner of the property. 16. The entire investigation is not fair. It appears that it is based on the fact that one of the accused is the Police Inspector. The apprehension on the part of the petitioner is duly supported from the conduct of the investigating officer. On perusal of the affidavitin- reply filed by the investigating officer, it is clearly found that in the present matter, the investigating officer is not properly investigating the case and the conduct on the part of the investigating officer is to shield the accused from the clutches of law. It is pertinent to note that the accused have also preferred application for quashing of the FIR before this Court but the same has been rejected by this Court. Though this fact is known to the investigating officer, he dared to file such affidavit to shield the accused. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it clearly appears that at the initial stage, the police was not ready to register the FIR and at the instance of this Court, the FIR was registered by the concerned police. Even thereafter, the police is not investigating the case in proper manner. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is liable to be allowed. However, the petitioner has sought relief to transfer the investigation to the CBI. But, transferring of the investigation will be burden on the part of the CBI and it will not be proper, however the investigation could be handed over to the City Crime Branch, and the police officer, who is to carry out the investigation, would be not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. 18. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. 18. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The investigation of the FIR, being C.R. No.I-63 of 2016 dated 29.12.2016, registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences is hereby transferred to the City Crime Branch, Ahmedabad. The Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City is hereby directed to see that the matter is investigated by the police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime). 19. It is clarified that the concerned investigating officer shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in the merits of the case while carrying out the investigation as the same are made only for the purpose of deciding this petition for transferring the investigation. The observation(s) made hereinabove on factual aspects of the case may not be termed as final opinion of this Court. 20. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.