JUDGMENT : Sunil B. Shukre, J. 1. Mr. Rajesh K. Rathod (respondent No.5) and Mr. Shyam Ghuge (respondent No.6) are personally present before this Court. 2. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Basically, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non co-operative stance taken by respondent No.3 in investigating the crime registered on the basis of the complaint dated 04.08.2019 vide Crime No.285/2019. This crime has been registered for offences punishable under Section 498-Ar/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and in-laws of the complainant who is the petitioner in the present case. 4. According to the petitioner, investigation of this crime is not being done with any seriousness and there has been a criminal neglect in investigating the crime on the part of the Police Station Officer. The petitioner also alleges that in such criminal neglect, there is an active assistance offered by the Additional Superintendent of Police when he transferred the crime for its investigation to Police Station, (Jalgaon, Jamod). It is a different matter, as per the petitioner, that having considered the nature of crime and the recent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384 the investigation in the crime has been sent back by Police Station, Jalgaon (Jamod) to Police Station, Anjangaon (Surji) after recording the statements of in-laws of the petitioner, to Police Station, Anjangaon Surji. 5. On the backdrop of these allegations, the petitioner has sought change of the investigating officer and also initiation of appropriate action against respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Police Station Officer, Police Station Anjangaon Surji and the Additional Superintendent of Police, (Crime), District Amravati (Rural). 6. The reply placed on record today shows that during the pendency of this petition, the Investigating Officer has been changed with effect from 19.10.2019. Presently, this crime is being investigated into by the new Investigating Officer Mr. Polkar, API, Anjangaon, Surji. There are no allegations made against Mr. Polkar, API. With the change of Investigating Officer, the main prayer of this petition has been satisfied. 7. Presently, this crime is being investigated into by the new Investigating Officer Mr. Polkar, API, Anjangaon, Surji. There are no allegations made against Mr. Polkar, API. With the change of Investigating Officer, the main prayer of this petition has been satisfied. 7. As regards the other prayer, we find that there is no material placed on record or any other material shown to us by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the crime from Police Station, Anjangaon Surji to Police Station Jalgaon (Jamod) was done deliberately with a view to provide some advantage to the accused persons. Similarly, there is no such material available on record from which it could be inferred that there has been an intentional neglect in investigating the crime. On the other hand, an explanation has been given in the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for transfer of the crime to Jalgaon, Jamod. It is stated therein that all the major acts of the cruelty and harassment and demand of dowry had taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jalgaon, Jamod. It has been made clear in the reply that after recording statements of in-laws of the complainant, the matter has been re-transferred to Police Station, Anjangaon Surji. It has been stated in the reply that when the police officials visited the place of complainant within the jurisdiction of Police Station Anjangaon Surji, she refused to give any statement as also her father and he also refused to accept notice. 8. These facts and circumstances of the case would show that Police Station Anjangao Surji was in a better position to carry out investigation in effective manner. If the complainant and her father were non-cooperative the Police Station Anjangao, Surji could have more conveniently exercised their coercive powers against unhelpful witnesses, rather than a remotely situated Police Station. Then, law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rupali Devi is clear. Police Station Anjangaon, Surji, according to it, did have the jurisdiction in the matter. We, therefore, find that there was no necessity for the respondent no. 6 to transfer the first information report to Police Station, Jalgaon (Jamod) even temporarily and he ought not to have transferred the investigation to that Police Station. However, at the same time, since no prejudice has been caused to the complainant, we accept the explanation offered by respondents no. 6 to transfer the first information report to Police Station, Jalgaon (Jamod) even temporarily and he ought not to have transferred the investigation to that Police Station. However, at the same time, since no prejudice has been caused to the complainant, we accept the explanation offered by respondents no. 5 and 6 and find that, there was no deliberate mistake or motive on the part of respondents no. 5 and 6 and as such, we are of the view that there is no merit in the second prayer made against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 9. Lastly, there is also a prayer for grant of compensation to the petitioner for the mental harassment caused to her. As we have found no criminal act attached to any of the actions of the respondents and whatever has been done by respondents in the present case was not deliberate or intentional, it is obvious that no case for grant of compensation has been made out by the petitioner. 10. In the result, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly with the direction to the Police Station, Anjangaon, Surji, District Amravati to complete the investigation within a period of four weeks from the date of the order in an effective manner and if necessary, by recording statements of the complainant and her relatives and neighbors at the places they reside. 11. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer would have power to make investigation also at Jalgaon, Jamod. 12. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court if her grievance of ineffective investigation continues. 13. Rule is discharged accordingly. No costs.