ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “i. To direct the respondents to refer the matter for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. To pass an order for the time bound investigation of the case and to monitor the investigation of the case and to monitor the investigation of the same case. iii. To direct the investigating agency to register an FIR in the case mentioned above on the basis of the Rapat No. 15 dated 9.6.2020 Annexure P1”. 2. The petitioner is widow of deceased Praveen Sharma. On 9.6.2020 Parveen Sharma, aged about 32 years, was found unconscious on a steep hill at a place known as “Kundu Nallah,” near Pairvi Pul, Sanaura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., within the jurisdiction of Police Post, Yashwant Nagar under Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. He was removed to Regional Hospital, Solan but was declared brought dead. Later it was revealed from post mortem examination that the deceased had suffered antimortem ribs fracture involving 4th, 8th ribs besides ten numbers external injuries. The cause of death was opined as “irreversible hemorrhage shock secondary to blunt trauma sustained to thorax region”. 3. Petitioner approached this Court after about three months from the incident for the reliefs as noticed above. Grievance of the petitioner is that the police despite having noticed circumstances pointing towards commission of cognizable offence, failed to discharge its statutory duty under Sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Code”). 4. As per petitioner, her husband was found in unconscious state at a secluded place far away from his house, which by no stretch of imagination could be said to be a normal circumstance. Even though deceased Praveen Sharma was declared brought dead, the police for the reasons best known to it did not consider it appropriate to register a case under Section 154 of the Code. Petitioner further alleged having made complaints in writing to the SHO as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Sirmour at Nahan, but without any result. 5. Respondents came forward with the plea that a DDR Nos 11 and 15 were recorded at Police Post Yashwant Nagar on 9.6.2020. As per respondents, a detailed inquiry was conducted. Petitioner further alleged having made complaints in writing to the SHO as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Sirmour at Nahan, but without any result. 5. Respondents came forward with the plea that a DDR Nos 11 and 15 were recorded at Police Post Yashwant Nagar on 9.6.2020. As per respondents, a detailed inquiry was conducted. Post mortem of deceased was got conducted firstly at Regional Hospital Solan, on 10.6.2020 and subsequently at IGMC, Shimla, on 12.6.2020. The samples preserved during the post mortem were sent for chemical analysis and report was received on 5.8.2020. It is maintained that the doctors after post mortem had opined the case of death to be the result of “irreversible hemorrhage shock secondary to blunt trauma sustained to thorax region”. The said report was finally confirmed by the doctors even after receipt of report of chemical analysis from State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL). It is further stated that the police had thoroughly investigated the matter and had even sought the opinion of forensic expert by getting the spot inspected from them. The forensic experts also are stated to have opined “the topography of spot, injuries on the body were consistent with a case of fall from steep hill of Nalla”. Thus, the police maintained the hypothesis that deceased had a fall from the hill, which caused his death. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 7. The petition was filed on 11.9.2020. Initially petitioner had impleaded State through its Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary Home and Superintendent of Police, Nahan as respondents. As first response, a status report dated 25.9.2020 was fled in this court under the signatures of Station House Officer, Rajgarh (SHO). Later a reply dated 12.10.2020 under the signatures of Superintendent of Police (SP), Nahan was filed and lastly newly added respondent ASI, Amar Dutt Sharma (ASI) also filed his personal affidavit dated 1.10.2021. 8. As per version of Police, as gathered from above noticed response(s), chronology of events can be detailed as under: (i) DDR No.11 was recorded at Police Post (PP) Yashwantnagar at about 7.35 PM on 9.6.2020. Informant was the ASI. 8. As per version of Police, as gathered from above noticed response(s), chronology of events can be detailed as under: (i) DDR No.11 was recorded at Police Post (PP) Yashwantnagar at about 7.35 PM on 9.6.2020. Informant was the ASI. As per DDR No.11, a telephonic information to the effect was received from Shri Vidya Nand Sharma, Vice President, Gram Panchayat, Karganu through Mobile number 9817210142, that a person was lying unconscious about 120 meters above the road in Kundu Nallah, near Pairvi Pul and request was made for Police help. The ASI accompanying by other Police officials left for the spot. (ii) On spot of incidence, Police found one Anil Sharma, informant Vidya Nand Sharma, Ankit Thakur and Anil Kumar @ Kaku. Anil Sharma disclosed the name of unconscious person as Parveen Sharma. He was carried to road side and then removed to RH Solan in the Car of Ankit Thakur. (iii) On way to hospital, Anil Sharma disclosed to the ASI that he along with Parveen Sharma had started from Solan in the car of Parveen Sharma towards Pairvi Pul. On way he had purchased a “quarter” of “Magic Moment” (VODKA) and both of them had consumed the Vodka in equal proportion near Dungu Nallah. Thereafter Parveen Sharma had expressed need to ease himself out. He had gone towards Dungu Nallah, but when he did not return for about half an hour Anil Sharma went in his search and found him unconscious at some distance. Anil Sharma returned to the car and carried water bottle, splashed water on Parveen Sharma but could not succeed. He again returned back on the road where Vidya Nand Sharma and Ankit Thakur stopped their vehicle on his request and accompanied him to spot. The information to the Police was given by Vidya Nand Sharma from his mobile phone from spot. (iv) Parveen Sharma was declared brought dead at RH Solan. Police conducted inquest proceedings. No injuries were observed on the body of deceased by the ASI. Therefore, he did not find any evidence of homicide. Body was packed as per COVID protocol and shifted to mortuary. Police party returned to PP and DDR No. 15 dated 7.6.2020 was recorded at 11.30 PM. (v) Next day on 10.6.2020, brother of deceased (Navneet Sharma) accompanied by other relatives reached the spot early in morning and requested ASI Amar Dutt to visit the spot. Body was packed as per COVID protocol and shifted to mortuary. Police party returned to PP and DDR No. 15 dated 7.6.2020 was recorded at 11.30 PM. (v) Next day on 10.6.2020, brother of deceased (Navneet Sharma) accompanied by other relatives reached the spot early in morning and requested ASI Amar Dutt to visit the spot. It was noticed that one big stone was lying in Nallah which appeared to have dislodged from height of about 9/10 feet and traces to this effect were found. (vi) Post mortem of deceased was conducted at Regional Hospital Solan, on 10.6.2020 at 11.45 AM. No external injury was found on the body of deceased and the same was referred to IGMC, Shimla for opinion of forensic expert on the cause of death. (vii) Body of deceased was tested for COVID before being taken to IGMC. The report was negative and on 12.6.2020 post mortem was again conducted at IGMC, Shimla and PMR No. 174 of 2020 was issued. Its perusal revealed as many as 10 external ante mortem injuries on the body as detailed under: “(1) red abraded contusion 2cm x 1cm present over joint above and adjoining to lateral half of left elbow. (2) red grazed abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm present over the posterior aspect of right shoulder joint. (3) read grazed abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm present in the midline of posterior aspect of lower thorax. (4) read abraded contusion 2 cm x 1 cm present over the posterior aspect of right side of abdomen in middle one inch 5 cm lethal to midline. (5) red abraded contusion 4cm x 1 cm present over the right side of posterior aspect of abdomen 1.5 cm below and lateral to injury No.4. (6) red contusion of size 1cm x 1cmpresent over the anterior aspect of left side of thorax 1.5 cm from midline in 5th intercostal space. (7) read contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm. Present over right anterior aspect of thorax 4.5 cm from midline in the 7th inter coastal space. (8) red contusion of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm present in the midline over and aspect of thorax in 7th8th intercostal space. (9) red contusion of size 2.5 x 1cm present over anterior aspect of thorax in 7th 8th intercostal space 1 cm lateral to injury No. 8 on left side. (8) red contusion of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm present in the midline over and aspect of thorax in 7th8th intercostal space. (9) red contusion of size 2.5 x 1cm present over anterior aspect of thorax in 7th 8th intercostal space 1 cm lateral to injury No. 8 on left side. (10) red abraded contusion of size 4 cm x 1 cm present over the left lumber right of anterior aspect of abdomen 4.5 cm lateral to the umbilicus”. In addition ante mortem fracture of 4th and 8th ribs with resultant internal injuries to lungs were also detected. (viii) Samples for chemical analysis were preserved and sent to SFSL, Junga. “Irreversible hemorrhage shock secondary to blunt trauma sustained to thorax region” was opined as cause of death provisionally. However, the ASI was verbally informed by Doctors at IGMC Shimla that cause of death was internal injuries suffered by deceased as a result of fall of some heavy object on him. (ix) Statement of Anil Sharma was recorded by the ASI on 12.6.2020, in which he improved from his earlier oral version and additionally stated that on 9.6.2020, Parveen Kumar had called him telephonically and asked him to meet outside Bus Stand Solan as they had to visit place known as “Nagadi”. He accordingly joined Parveen Kumar, who was in his Maruti800 No.HP582392 and went towards “Panch Parmeshwar Temple”. It was about 2 PM, Parveen started talking to some female from mobile phone of Anil Kumar. On being asked, why he was not using his own phone, Parveen Kumar had replied that he was doing so in order to avoid being exposed at home. When he had gone in search of Parveen Kumar at Kundu Nallah, he had found him sitting in the company of a female, who happened to be belonging to nearby village to which Anil Kumar belonged. He also sat with them for some time and then was asked to go back to the car by Parveen Kumar. It was second time when he went in search of Parveen Kumar that he found him unconscious. (x) On 15.6.2020, SHO Rajgarh visited the spot with the ASI and Anil Kumar. One Pawan Kumar was also associated as witness. A heavy stone was stated to have been found on spot which appeared to have rolled down from uphill a few days back. (x) On 15.6.2020, SHO Rajgarh visited the spot with the ASI and Anil Kumar. One Pawan Kumar was also associated as witness. A heavy stone was stated to have been found on spot which appeared to have rolled down from uphill a few days back. The spot, where deceased was sitting with the female, was identified by Anil Kumar. A packet of condoms, empty pouches of “lays” and “tobacco” with a hair were found on spot. The ground was found depressed so as to reveal as somebody had lied down there. The statement of Anil Kumar was again recorded, wherein he reiterated the contents of earlier statement dated 12.6.2020. (xi) On 16.6.2020 the ASI recorded the statement of the female who was stated to be with deceased. As per her version, she had received phone call from some unknown person on 9.6.2020 at about 10 AM and she had found missed calls of same person at about noon on the same day. At about 4 PM deceased had given her phone call informing his arrival. She admitted to have indulged in sexual activity with deceased. According to her, Anil Kumar, who belonged to the village which was near to her village, had also visited them. She further stated that after sexual activity she left for her home and deceased was still on spot. (xii) The SFSL vide its chemical analysis report dated 5.8.2020 reported that no alcohol/poison was found in the blood samples of deceased. (xiii) On 14.8.2020, the statement of petitioner was recorded by police, who expressed her dissatisfaction with the proceedings and conclusions drawn by Police. On 27.8.2020, petitioner made a written complaint to SP Nahan. (xiv) On 29.8.2020, IGMC Shimla, after perusing chemical analysis report of SFSL, reiterated its opinion dated 12.6.2020 as to cause of death. (xv) SP Nahan received the complaint of petitioner on 5.9.2020 and forwarded the same to SHO, Rajgarh on 6.9.2020. (xvi) Instant petition was filed on 7.9.2020 after supplying the copies of petition to the original respondents on the same day. (xvii) The Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Rajgarh on 13.9.2020 requested Director SFSL to inspect the spot. The team of experts visited the spot on 20.9.2020 and submitted their report dated 6.10.2020. (xvi) Instant petition was filed on 7.9.2020 after supplying the copies of petition to the original respondents on the same day. (xvii) The Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Rajgarh on 13.9.2020 requested Director SFSL to inspect the spot. The team of experts visited the spot on 20.9.2020 and submitted their report dated 6.10.2020. (xviii) On 8.10.2020, the SDPO Rajgarh requested IGMC Shimla to opine the reasons for non detection of alcohol in the samples of deceased and also the reason for late appearance of injuries on his body. On 9.10.2020, IGMC opined through separate communications that due to delay in drawing of samples there was possibility of alcohol not being detected and regarding injuries it was opined as under: “The injuries mentioned in PMR No. 174/2020, dated 12.6.2020 on the body of deceased are abrasions and contusions. Abrasions can be appreciated when they are dry and contusions may appear as delayed contusions. “It is possible that these injuries may be better appreciated at autopsy table.” 9. Admittedly, Police did not register First Information Report under Section 154 Cr.P.C, still it ventured to have roving inquiry into various aspects of the matter and arrived at firm conclusion that the deceased appeared to have put his weight on the stone while descending on the slope, which caused the stone to roll resulting in fall of deceased and injuries suffered by him. 10. Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (2) SCC 1 , has stated the law as under: “119. Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR. 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above”. 11. Rule of law is the Constitutional mandate and Police holds no exception. Section 156 and 157 of the Code empowers police to investigate cognizable offences without prior authorization or orders from Magistrate or any other authority, but for that purpose also compliance of section 154 of the Code is imminent. In case of non-cognizable offences police cannot investigate without prior authorization from the Magistrate under Section 155 of the Code. 12. The importance and necessity of recording FIR has been summed up by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari supra as under: “97. The Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs. The duly signed FIR under Section 154 (1) is by the informant to the concerned officer at the police station. 12. The importance and necessity of recording FIR has been summed up by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari supra as under: “97. The Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs. The duly signed FIR under Section 154 (1) is by the informant to the concerned officer at the police station. The second kind of FIR could be which is registered by the police itself on any information received or other than by way of an informant [Section 157(1)] and even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant under Section 154 (1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157 (1) of the Code is obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages: 97.1. (a). It is the first step to ‘access to justice’ for a victim. 97.2. (b) It upholds the ‘Rule of Law’ inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State. 97.3.(c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law. 97.4.(d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of ‘antedated’ FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.” 13. We have not been able to convince ourselves as to why the police believed the version putforth by Anil Kumar in first instance, especially when he was not consistent and had introduced the female in the story after two days of his initial version. Noticeably, Anil Kumar and female belonged to adjoining villages. Further, police merely recorded the statement of the female and again believed it to be true. As per Anil Kumar, Parveen Kumar had called the female from his (Anil Kumar’s) mobile at about 2PM on 9.6.2020, whereas the female in her statement mentioned the time of receipt of call at 10 AM on 9.6.2020. The police version is that numerous calls were made to the female from the mobile number of Anil Kumar on 8.6.2020 and 9.6.2020 but there is no explanation about the calls made on 8.6.2020. The police version is that numerous calls were made to the female from the mobile number of Anil Kumar on 8.6.2020 and 9.6.2020 but there is no explanation about the calls made on 8.6.2020. The material which was disclosed by Post Mortem Report No. 174 of 2020 of IGMC Shimla, was worth noticing, when no external injuries were found on the body of deceased either by ASI Amar Dutt or the autopsy surgeons at RH Solan. Indisputably, the circumstances in which the deceased was found lying were not normal. Such conduct of police raises a lot of questions. The inquest proceedings allegedly held by Police are also surrounded by suspicion in as much as nothing has been produced on record to show the necessary information having been sent to the Executive Magistrate and his involvement thereafter. The expert team from SFSL visited the spot about three months after the incident and it can be anyone’s guess as to what evidence they could find especially when the intervening period had been rainy season. 14. In no circumstances, it can be said that the police had no material to suspect the foul play and apprehension of commission of cognizable offence. Had it been so, the police would not have ventured into roving enquiry and should have closed the case in the first instance after duly informing the victim/complainant under section 157(2) of the Code. 15. The police, however, remained wedged to its stand even when the petitioner expressed her discontent, vide her statement dated 15.6.2020, with the proceedings undertaken by the Police and subsequently approached the Superintendent of Police, Nahan through written complaint dated 27.8.2020. The conduct of the police definitely is not in accordance with law. 16. The Code though invests authorities with powers is also the Magna Carta for citizens. Rule of check and balance is inherent in the Code. Laudable purpose is to negate the possibility of misuse of power or highhandedness of the authorities vested with powers. On one hand the Code authorises the Police officer to arrest a person without warrant for cognizable offence(s), on the other section 167 thereof mandates sending of report to the Magistrate without delay regarding registration of FIR as also commencement of investigation for cognizable offence(s). On one hand the Code authorises the Police officer to arrest a person without warrant for cognizable offence(s), on the other section 167 thereof mandates sending of report to the Magistrate without delay regarding registration of FIR as also commencement of investigation for cognizable offence(s). Further section 172 of the Code mandates the police officer to maintain day to day case diary with respect to investigation undertaken under sections 166 and 167 of the Code. Thus, nothing is left in the hands of police officer to chose. Still, the role of the Police, in the instant case acted as a monocratic, unmindful of its legal obligations. The conduct of Police depicts the sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning who in most brazen, blatant and contemptuous manner have flouted and defied mandate of law. 17. The proceedings, thus, conducted by the police are not lawful. In case it is called investigation, it could not have been done without compliance of section 154, 156 and 157 of the Code and in case it was inquiry, then it is without jurisdiction as the Code does not vest the police to hold inquiry in such circumstances. Assumingly, police could hold inquiry, still it was to follow mandate of law as per Lalita Kumari (Supra). The material on record suggests clearly that the conduct of police was not bonafide. The police diaries have not been maintained in this case, which further places the conduct of police in the realm of suspicion. 18. The fact of the matter remains that non registration of FIR by the police and consequent absence of investigation in accordance with law may have allowed the evidence, if any, to vanish or dilute, still the law has to take its course. FIR is required to be registered immediately on the basis of already available information followed by prompt and expeditious investigation. The question however arises should the investigation still remain with state police or should it be undertaken by some other agency? 19. It is well settled that the investigation can be transferred from local police to CBI only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine. In State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571 , a Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “70. In State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571 , a Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasize that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to 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 and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 20. Reference can also be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and others (2013) 12 SCC 480 , wherein it has held as under: “13. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest and complete investigation”, and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies…... 17. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the Court could exercise its Constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high officials of State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instill confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased.” 21. In the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2015) 9 SCC 795 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as under: “12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on the Court's satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order. No hard and fast rule has been or can possibly be prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given conclusion. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extra ordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee agency will necessarily much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls that are common place when State police investigates matters of some significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the independence of that agency from such or similar other considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent.” 22. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with an identical issue in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others (2020) 14 SCC 12 and after exposition of the past precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, it has been held as under: “46. The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances”. In assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power. It is necessary to address the grounds on which the petitioner seeks a transfer of the investigation. ……….” 23. In assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power. It is necessary to address the grounds on which the petitioner seeks a transfer of the investigation. ……….” 23. After noticing the above noted exposition of law, we have no hesitation in holding that, the instant case carves out exceptional circumstances warranting the matter to be investigated by an independent investigating agency. We are satisfied that the victim has no specific design behind the prayer for referring the matter to CBI, hence the same can only be an attempt to ensure the discovery of truth, which is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than the Central Bureau of Investigation which will have all independence in the facts of the case. 24. The petition is thus allowed. Respondents are directed to forthwith handover all records pertaining to the case to Central Bureau of Investigation, through its Superintendent of Police, Railway Board Building, Shimla whereupon, the CBI shall register a case for commission of cognizable offence under appropriate provisions of penal law(s) and shall investigate the same in accordance with law with sufficient promptitude, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 25. Before parting, we deem it fit and proper, keeping in view the facts of the case, to direct Principal Secretary Home, Government of Himachal Pradesh to get the conduct and role, of police officials (having dealt with the matter) i.e. concerned Superintendent of Police Sirmaur at Nahan, Sub Divisional Police Officer Rajgarh, SHO Rajgarh and Shri Amar Dutt Sharma incharge Police Post Yashwantnagar, in dealing with the matter detailed hereinabove, enquired from an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police particularly keeping in view the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra). The enquiry shall be completed expeditiously and on priority and in any case not later than 31.12.2021 and the compliance report shall positively be submitted to this Court on 5.1.2022 26. In light of above discussion, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.