JUDGMENT:
1. Though there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits.
2. The order of the learned Single Judge in WP NO. 29187/2011 dated 18.02.2013 is assailed in this appeal. In the Writ Petition, the appellant who was the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to hand over further investigation of Crime No. 171/2008 re-numbered as CC No. 4111/2009 pending on the file of III Traffic Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Learned Single Judge on consideration of the matter has disposed of the Writ Petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the concerned criminal court for appropriate action. That order is assailed in this appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record, as well as the additional material which has been produced during the course of submissions.
4. The main grievance of the appellant is that in the further investigation report, police subscribed to the contents of the initial investigation report. That in the application made by the appellant pursuant to the orders of this Court, certain facts were brought to the notice of the second investigation officer. Those facts have not been considered and therefore the investigation in the instant case is not in accordance with law. It was in that context, a direction was sought from this Court to handover the matter to the CBI for further investigation into the matter.
5. Learned Single Judge has considered these aspects and has noted that initially the case was investigated and a report was prepared on the basis of the available material. The appellant was not satisfied with that investigation report and has approached this Court in WP No. 11199/2009. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 29.01.2010, reserving liberty to the appellant herein to make an application for the purpose of having a further investigation. Accordingly, the appellant had made an application and the request of the appellant was acceded to and the Deputy Commissioner of Police was appointed for conducting further investigation. The subsequent report has been given. In fact, investigation has been conducted by two different Police officers in the instant case. It is noted that the report submitted on further investigation has been assailed by the appellant herein. In case, the appellant is of the opinion that the subsequent report has not taken into consideration the points brought out by the appellant, in her application pursuant to the order dated 29.01.2010 passed by this Court, then the appellant could avail of the remedy as is available under the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Single Judge in fact has reserved liberty to the appellant to take such a recourse, if so advised.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Tamang v. Union of India (2013 Indlaw SC 681) to contend that there have been instances where matters have been handed over to the CBI for further investigation in certain cases. Attention was drawn to Para-37 of that order. We have perused the same and we fellow those guidelines in the instant case. In fact, in the present case, there has been no exceptional circumstance which have been made out which would enable this Court to direct the matter to be handed over to the CBI. Also, in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping the principles in mind, the Hon'ble Court noted 31 specific points on the basis of which a direction was issued for transferring the matter to CBI for further Investigation. In the instant case, we do not find any such glaring point which have been made out which would necessitate such transfer in the instant case.
7. We think that the matter would not call for handing over the investigation to the CBI. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal ((2010) 3 SCC 571), as well as Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P v. Sahngoo Ram Arya ((2002) 5 SCC 521) has given guidelines and made observations with regard to handing over criminal matters to the CBI. We think, having regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those cases, this matter cannot be handed over to the CBI for further investigation. Therefore, reserving liberty as stated by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Since the appeal is dismissed, I.A No. 1/2013 would not survive for consideration.