ORDER 1. Nannu Singh, father of the petitioner, had lodged FIR No. 270/2022 with police station Sadar, Deeg, Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341, 326A, 307, 456 and 379 IPC. 2. According to FIR, for property dispute, the named accused persons on 09.08.2022 sprinkled petrol on the body of the informant and burnt him. Nannu Singh was hospitalized and was getting treatment and in course of the treatment, he died on 02.10.2022 due to burn injuries. 3. The petitioner who is son of Nannu Singh filed this petition on 18.08.2022 with prayer to hand over investigation of the case to the CID (CB) or to some senior police officer posted outside Bharatpur range. Petitioner is a practicing advocate of this court as well as an eye-witness of the incident disclosed in the FIR. 4. By order dated 30.08.2022 in presence of the investigating officer of the case, this court directed that he should record statement of the prosecution witnesses produced by petitioner within three days as petitioner had alleged that statement of witnesses of occurrence are not being recorded by investigating officer in collusion with the accused persons. 5. The report dated 17.10.2022 has been brought on the record today which does not reveal that order of this court dated 30.08.2022 was complied or not, rather it reveals that police has believed the case under Sections 143, 323 and 341 IPC only and rest of the allegations under Section 326A, 307, 456 and 379 IPC have been disbelieved. The police is going to submit report after completion of the investigation. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case diary would reveal that statement of informant, statement of Smt. Prakashi wife of the informant and statement of other witnesses as well as of the petitioner were recorded. On perusal of the statement of these witnesses, it appears that they have supported what is stated in the FIR. 7. Since police has already completed the investigation, petitioner would be at liberty to file protest petition with the trial Judge who shall pass order according to law. The law is well settled that Magistrate is not bound by the police report if contrary evidence is on the record. The Magistrate is expected to go through the evidence of eye-witnesses in the case diary at the time of taking congnizance. 8. The law is well settled that Magistrate is not bound by the police report if contrary evidence is on the record. The Magistrate is expected to go through the evidence of eye-witnesses in the case diary at the time of taking congnizance. 8. This court has gone through the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "70... In so far as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such powers 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 levelled 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 instil 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 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." 9. In K.V. Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai (2013) 12 SCC 480 , The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated:- 13. 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 instil 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. 17. 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 instil confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased. 10. This petition does not disclose identity of the individual politician who was likely to influence the investigation. Considering the settled guidelines, the court is not in favour of handing over the case for re-investigation by CBI. The protest petition, if any, filed by informant can protect the right of informant and if the petitioner would be aggrieved by the action of magistrate, he may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. 11. The petition is accordingly disposed off.