[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramgopal Sakhwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
1 WP-19656-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 14th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 19656 of 2025
RAMGOPAL SAKHWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Government Advocate for the State.
ShriRavi Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The presnet petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
7(1). यह क, याथ गण को आदे िशत कया जावे क
पुिलस थाना मुरार जला वािलयर म यािचकाकता के पु
रजनीश के संबंध म दज गुमशुदगी मांक 36/2024 तथा उ
संबंध म यािचकाकता के पु रजनीश का शव िमलने के संबंध
म पुिलस याना-पुरानी छावनी जला वािलयर म दज मग क.
19/2024 क जांच/ ववेचना CBI को सुपुद क जाव।
7(II). यह क, CBI को आदे िशत कया जावे क उ
मामले क ववेचना यथासंभव अितशी पूण क जाकर स म
यायालय म अ तम ितवेदन तुत करे ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
2 WP-19656-2025
7(III). यह क, याथ गण को आदे िशत कया जावे
कउ मामले म लापरवाह वरतने वाले दोषी अिधका रय के
व वभागीय एवं द डा मक कायवाह क जावे।
7(IV). यह क, याय हत म जो भी उिचत हो
आदे श/िनदश जार कया जावे।
Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a poor labourer by
profession who earns his livelihood through daily wages and supports his
family with great hardship. He is a permanent resident of Village
Koksingh Ka Pura, Roar, Police Station Ambah, District Morena,
Madhya Pradesh, and was residing at Gwalior for employment purposes.
The petitioner has four children, including two sons and two daughters.
His eldest son, Rajneesh Sakhwar, was of marriageable age and his
marriage had been fixed in the year 2024. The ceremony of Phaldan was
scheduled to be held on 19.04.2024 and the marriage ceremony on
23.04.2024. On 15.04.2024, when the petitioner returned home in the
evening, he did not find his son Rajneesh at home. Upon inquiry, his
daughter Pooja informed him that Rajneesh had left the house at about
6:30 PM to distribute wedding invitation cards. The petitioner contacted
Rajneesh on his mobile phone, whereupon Rajneesh informed him that
he was at City Centre, Gwalior, and would return home within an hour.
However, Rajneesh did not return home for a long time, and when the
petitioner again attempted to contact him, his mobile phone was found
switched off. Despite waiting for several hours and making extensive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
3 WP-19656-2025
efforts, the petitioner was unable to trace his son. Consequently, on
17.04.2024, the petitioner along with his wife Babita Sakhwar
approached Police Station Morar, District Gwalior, and lodged a missing
person report, which was registered as Missing Person Registration
No.36/2024. Despite continuous efforts made by the petitioner and his
family members to locate Rajneesh, no information regarding his
whereabouts could be gathered. During the course of searching for his
son, the petitioner came to know that Rajneesh was in regular contact
with Ms. Poonam Jarseniya, a resident of Sikandar Kampoo, Bandha Ka
Para, Lashkar, Gwalior, who was a married woman. It was also revealed
that due to this relationship, her family members used to threaten
Rajneesh. Apprehending that some untoward incident might have been
caused to his son, the petitioner, through his wife, submitted a written
complaint dated 15.05.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior,
expressing grave suspicion against the said persons. As no effective
steps were taken by the respondent police authorities to trace Rajneesh,
the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a Habeas
Corpus Petition bearing W.P. No. 13832/2024, wherein Ms. Poonam
Jarseniya and her parents were also arrayed as parties. On 20.05.2024,
the Division Bench directed the State counsel to seek instructions and
ordered the production of the corpus before the Court. Despite repeated
directions issued on subsequent dates, the police authorities failed to
trace or produce Rajneesh. By a detailed order dated 09.12.2024, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
4 WP-19656-2025
Division Bench recorded its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the
investigation was being conducted and observed that the police
authorities were merely completing formalities without making sincere
efforts. The Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, was summoned before
the Court and assured that a deeper and more effective investigation
would be conducted. During the hearing dated 16.12.2024, the police
authorities informed the Court that Rajneesh had allegedly committed
suicide by jumping in front of a train. The petitioner identified the
clothes found on the body and the photographs shown to him as
belonging to his son. Subsequently, on 20.01.2025, the police further
stated that the DNA report had confirmed that the deceased found on the
railway track was Rajneesh. This Court expressed serious displeasure
over the inordinate delay and negligence on the part of the police
officials and summoned the concerned officers to explain their conduct.
Ultimately, on 22.01.2025, the Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of.
While disposing of the petition, the Division Bench categorically
recorded findings of gross negligence, lack of coordination, and serious
lapses on the part of the police authorities. The Court noted that although
the missing person report had been lodged at Police Station Murar, the
unidentified dead body was recovered from the jurisdiction of Police
Station Purani Chhawani, Gwalior, yet due to lack of inter-departmental
coordination, the body remained unidentified for a considerable period.
Directions were issued to the Director General of Police to initiate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
5 WP-19656-2025
appropriate action against the erring officials. During the course of the
proceedings, the police placed on record statements of Ms. Poonam
Jarseniya, her husband Ashish, her parents, and other witnesses. These
statements revealed that Rajneesh and Poonam were in a long-standing
relationship, and they had gone together to Bageshwar Dham on
13.04.2024 along with others, and an attempt was made to solemnize
their marriage at a temple, which could not be completed due to
Poonam's ill health. The statements further disclose that Poonam's
husband and family members were aware of her continued contact with
Rajneesh even after her marriage. It also emerged from the statements
that Rajneesh had repeatedly expressed that he would leave his home or
disappear if his marriage was forcibly solemnized elsewhere. The
petitioner submitted that these facts gave rise to a strong suspicion that
Rajneesh did not commit suicide and after his relationship became
known, Poonam's husband and relatives, in connivance with each other,
intentionally caused his death and projected it as a case of suicide or
accidental death by throwing him before a train. The petitioner submitted
that Rajneesh had no reason whatsoever to commit suicide, particularly
when his own marriage was imminent. More than one year has elapsed
since the incident, yet no fair, impartial, or effective investigation has
been carried out. In view of the findings already recorded by this Court
regarding gross police negligence, the petitioner had completely lost
faith in the local police machinery. The petitioner, therefore, submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
6 WP-19656-2025
that the District Police is neither adequately equipped nor capable of
conducting a fair and independent investigation in the present matter,
and in the interest of justice, the investigation deserves to be handed
over to an independent and higher agency such as the Central Bureau of
Investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ
petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has
been denied a fair, impartial, and effective investigation into the
unnatural death of his son, Rajneesh Sakhwar. The gross negligence,
lack of coordination, and deliberate inaction of the respondent police
authorities have frustrated the petitioner's efforts to secure justice.
It is further submitted that the petitioner's son went missing on
15.04.2024, when his marriage ceremonies were imminent and there was
no circumstance suggesting any suicidal tendency. A missing person
report was promptly lodged on 17.04.2024 at Police Station Murar,
District Gwalior, but the police failed to conduct a meaningful
investigation. Despite the fact that an unidentified body was recovered
from the railway track under the jurisdiction of Police Station Purani
Chhawani, Gwalior, the police failed to correlate the missing person
report with the recovered body. This resulted in an inordinate delay of
several months in identification, which has already been held by this
Court to constitute gross negligence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
7 WP-19656-2025
It is further submitted that the petitioner was constrained to
approach this Court by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition and during the
proceedings, repeated directions were issued to the police authorities to
trace and produce the corpus. The Division Bench, after monitoring the
matter over several hearings, recorded categorical findings that the
investigation was being conducted in a mechanical and casual manner,
and the police officers were merely completing paperwork without
sincere efforts. The Hon'ble Court summoned the Superintendent of
Police, Gwalior, and directed the Director General of Police to take
appropriate action against the erring officials, thereby acknowledging the
serious lapses in the investigation.
It is further submitted that the police conclusion that the deceased
committed suicide is based on assumptions and not on a legally
sustainable investigation. The authorities failed to consider the angle of
abetment or homicidal death despite overwhelming material suggesting
motive and threats. Statements recorded during investigation clearly
established that the deceased was in a long-standing relationship with
Ms. Poonam Jarseniya, a married woman, and her husband and family
members were aware of the same. The material further revealed that the
deceased accompanied the said woman to Bageshwar Dham just two
days prior to his disappearance and an attempt to solemnize their
marriage was made, which strengthens the suspicion of foul play.
It is further submitted that the deceased had openly expressed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
8 WP-19656-2025
apprehension and emotional distress due to pressure being exerted upon
him to sever ties with the said woman and proceed with an arranged
marriage. These aspects were neither investigated properly nor
examined from the perspective of criminal conspiracy or abetment. The
police deliberately failed to collect scientific, electronic, and
circumstantial evidence which could have thrown light on the true cause
of death.
It is further submitted that the post-mortem report itself does not
support the conclusion of suicide arrived at by the investigating agency
and the post-mortem report records that the cause of death is "due to
ante-mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt object" and further states
that the "nature of death could not be ascertained." The medical officer
has not opined whether the death was accidental, homicidal, or suicidal.
Thus, none of the three legally recognized categories of death has been
certified in the post-mortem report.
It is further submitted that when the medical opinion itself is vague
and inconclusive, the police could not have presumed the death to be
suicidal. Injuries caused by a hard and blunt object are equally consistent
with homicidal assault, and the post-mortem report does not rule out
such a possibility. In the absence of a categorical medical opinion, the
conclusion of suicide is based on assumption rather than evidence,
rendering the investigation legally unsustainable and incomplete.
It is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
9 WP-19656-2025
marginalized background and lacks the means or influence to compel a
proper investigation by the local police and once this Court itself has
recorded findings of negligence and lack of coordination on the part of
the police, no further confidence can be reposed in the same agency to
conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. The law is well settled that
where an investigation lacks credibility and inspires no confidence,
constitutional courts are empowered to direct investigation by an
independent agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation to
ensure justice and maintain public faith in the criminal justice system.
It is further submitted that more than one year has elapsed since
the incident, yet the investigation has not reached any logical conclusion
and the delay has caused irreparable prejudice to the petitioner and
resulted in the destruction or dilution of crucial evidence.
It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azija
Begum v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 126, in
Paragraph 13, has held that every citizen has the right to have their
complaint properly investigated. The legal framework of investigation
cannot be selectively available to some citizens and denied to others.
This is a question of equal protection under the law and ensuring equal
access to justice. A fair and proper investigation is essential to uphold
the rule of law and maintain public confidence in a democratic society.
Further, in Shakila Abdul Ghaffar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath
Dhoble reported in AIR 2003 SC 4567, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
10 WP-19656-2025
observed that once the confidence of citizens in the authorities is
forfeited, it cannot be easily regained and deficient investigation or
prosecution must be addressed appropriately to ensure justice, as justice
has no favourites, only the truth.
In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
elaborated on the constitutional powers of judicial review under Articles
32 and 226. The Apex Court observed that fundamental rights under Part
III of the Constitution, including Article 21, extend not only to the
accused but also to victims. The State has a duty to ensure a fair and
impartial investigation, including against its own officials, and courts
may direct investigation by independent agencies in exceptional
situations. The Court held that the power of constitutional courts to
direct investigation by the CBI does not violate the doctrine of
separation of powers or the federal structure.
It is further submitted that under Article 14 of the Constitution,
every citizen is entitled to equal protection of the law. In the present
case, the petitioner has been struggling for justice for more than one
year. The local police have failed to ascertain the truth in the matter
despite repeated directions from this Court. In such circumstances,
entrusting the investigation to the CBI is both just and necessary as the
Division Bench, during the Habeas Corpus proceedings, repeatedly
recorded that the local police acted with gross negligence and that due to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
11 WP-19656-2025
lack of coordination between police stations, the petitioner's son's death
could not be timely communicated or properly investigated. In such a
scenario, no confidence can be placed in the respondent police
authorities. When the local police failed to conduct an impartial
investigation, the matter must be entrusted to the CBI. This approach has
been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in W.P. No.
7665/2013 (Gaurakh Pandey v. Union of India), M.Cr.C. No.
50910/2022 (Ramnivas Singh v. State of M.P.), and W.P. No.
4651/2014 (Ramsharan Baghel v. State of M.P.), where investigations
were transferred to the CBI in view of similar lapses.
It is further submitted that the petitioner's son's dead body was
recovered from the railway track under the jurisdiction of Police Station
Purani Chhawani, District Gwalior, registered as Merg No. 19/2024.
In view of the foregoing, it is prayed that the investigation relating
to Missing Person Registration No. 36/2024 and Merg No. 19/2024 be
transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation which in turn be
directed to complete the investigation in a time-bound manner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel for
the respondent No.2 had submit that the local police have conducted the
investigation into the disappearance and subsequent death of Rajneesh
Sakhwar diligently, in accordance with the law, and with all procedural
and statutory requirements fully complied with. Upon receiving the
missing person report lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Murar,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
12 WP-19656-2025
District Gwalior, on 17.04.2024, the police promptly initiated inquiries,
recorded statements of the petitioner, his family members, and other
relevant witnesses, and conducted searches in the areas where the
deceased was last seen.
In relation to Merg No. 19/2024 registered at Police Station Purani
Chhawani, District Gwalior, it is submitted that on 16.04.2024, the
informant Satish Singh reported that on the previous night, 15.04.2024,
at around 9:40 p.m., the train driver had informed that the dead body of
an unidentified male was lying on the railway track between Pole
No.1232/17-15. On reaching the spot, the police observed that the body
of an unidentified male, approximately 30 years old, had his head
partially severed, injuries on both hands and legs, wearing blue jeans and
a military-colored T-shirt, barefoot, with light facial hair, and wearing a
black thread with a locket. The RPF police and personnel from Police
Station Purani Chhawani secured the body and sent it to J.A.H. for post-
mortem. The case was registered as Merg No. 19/2024 and taken up for
formal investigation. During the investigation, the police made
systematic efforts to identify the deceased and on 12.12.2024, the
unidentified person was formally identified as Rajneesh alias Rajneesh
Sakhwar, aged 23 years, son of Ramgopal Sakhwar, resident near Bijli
Ghar, Gram Khurai Bari Gaon, Police Station Murar, District Gwalior.
Identification was conducted in the presence of the father, and a formal
identification report was prepared. Items related to the deceased,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
13 WP-19656-2025
including the tibia bone, vertebra, and clothing, were seized. For
technical verification, a DNA sample was obtained from the mother,
Babita, and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The DNA report
confirmed a positive biological match with the parents. Subsequently,
the body of Rajneesh Sakhwar was exhumed from Sindhiyanagar
Cremation Ground, Chandrawadni Naka, in the presence of his parents
and the Executive Magistrate, and handed over to the family.
It is further submitted that statements were recorded from the
deceased's parents, witness Sadhana Jadoun, accused Poonam Arolia,
Anjali Arolia, Saurabh Arolia, Ashish Jarseniya, and Saurabh Kushwah
and mobile call records of the accused were also obtained. Investigation
established that the deceased had a long-standing relationship with
Poonam Arolia since 2017-2018 and both intended to marry, but family
opposition prevented it. In the year 2020, the deceased took Poonam to
Ujjain without the consent of her family, after which her family filed a
report at Police Station Kampu. Subsequently, Poonam was married to
Ashish Arolia in the year 2022, after which the deceased resumed
telephonic contact with her. It was further revealed that the deceased
expressed distress over his inability to marry Poonam and, at times,
threatened suicide due to pressure from his family to accept another
marriage. Detailed statements confirming these facts were recorded
during the investigation. Based on all evidence, including witness
statements, post-mortem and forensic reports, and analysis of call detail
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
14 WP-19656-2025
records, the police concluded that the deceased committed suicide by
jumping in front of a train under emotional stress caused by his
relationship. The investigation did not reveal any cognizable offence by
any third party. The final closure report, after obtaining permission from
the competent authority, was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
on 12.08.2025. The investigating officer and personnel were punished
for negligence in the conduct of their duties by the Superintendent of
Police, Gwalior.
It is further submitted that the local police conducted all
procedures meticulously, including securing the scene, recording
statements of all material witnesses, collecting and analyzing physical
and electronic evidence, and verifying the identity of the deceased
through DNA and post-mortem procedures. The conclusion of suicide is
based on scientific and circumstantial evidence, and there is no prima
facie indication of foul play, criminal negligence, or malfeasance on the
part of the police.
It is further submitted that the transfer of investigation to the
Central Bureau of Investigation is an extraordinary remedy and should
only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, where the local police
are incapable or unwilling to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.
In the present case, the local police have conducted the investigation
diligently and within their jurisdiction, and the petitioner's
dissatisfaction with the pace of inquiry does not amount to a failure
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
15 WP-19656-2025
warranting CBI intervention. The investigation remains ongoing, and the
authorities are competent to conclude it effectively.
It is thus submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed to the
extent it seeks transfer of investigation to the CBI, and this Court may
permit the local police to continue and complete the investigation
expeditiously while monitoring compliance with its directions, without
interfering with the jurisdiction and functioning of the State police.
From a cumulative consideration of the pleadings, the material
placed on record, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, and the legal position governing the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the
considered view that no case is made out for transfer of investigation to
the Central Bureau of Investigation, as it is not in dispute that serious
lapses and lack of coordination were noticed at the initial stage of the
investigation, particularly with regard to failure to correlate the missing
person report with the recovery of an unidentified dead body from
another police station jurisdiction. Those lapses have already been
judicially noticed, deprecated, and remedial directions were issued by
this Court in the earlier habeas corpus proceedings. The record further
reflects that departmental action has since been initiated and concluded
against the erring police officials. The said aspect, therefore, cannot be
reagitated to seek a fresh investigation by a different agency unless it is
demonstrated that the subsequent investigation is vitiated by mala fides,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
16 WP-19656-2025
bias, or deliberate suppression of material evidence.
The material on record indicates that after identification of the
deceased through DNA profiling, the investigating agency undertook a
detailed investigation by recording statements of all material witnesses,
examining call detail records, considering medical and forensic evidence,
and analyzing the surrounding circumstances. The conclusion arrived at
by the investigating agency that the deceased committed suicide due to
emotional distress arising from personal and relational issues is based on
evidence collected during investigation. Mere suspicion, however grave,
or a subjective belief of the petitioner that a homicidal angle exists,
cannot substitute legally admissible material warranting transfer of
investigation.
This Court also finds that the post-mortem report, when read in its
entirety, does not by itself justify interference with the investigation or
warrant transfer of the case to another agency, as though the medical
opinion records that the nature of death could not be ascertained and
notes injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, such an opinion, by
itself, cannot be construed as evidence of homicidal death. The absence
of a categorical opinion regarding suicide, accident, or homicide does
not automatically render the investigation illegal or unfair, particularly
when the investigating agency has examined the surrounding
circumstances, collected corroborative material, and arrived at a
conclusion based on cumulative evidence. Medical opinion is only one
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
17 WP-19656-2025
component of the investigative process and must be appreciated in
conjunction with circumstantial, forensic, and documentary evidence.
Furthermore, an inconclusive post-mortem report does not mandate
reinvestigation or transfer of investigation unless it is demonstrated that
relevant material was deliberately ignored or that the investigation was
conducted with mala fide intent. In the present case, no such material has
been brought on record to show that the investigating agency suppressed
or misinterpreted the medical opinion. The mere possibility of an
alternative hypothesis, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot form the
basis for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, far from undermining
the investigation, does not furnish sufficient ground to disbelieve the
conclusions drawn by the investigating agency.
It is well settled that a direction for CBI investigation is not to be
issued as a matter of routine or merely because the petitioner has lost
faith in the local police. The extraordinary power under Article 226 must
be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the Court is satisfied that
the investigation is demonstrably unfair, tainted, or intended to shield the
real culprits. The present case does not meet that threshold.
The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Azija
Begum v. State of Maharashtra (supra) is misplaced, as the said
judgment reiterates the right of a citizen to a proper investigation. In the
present case, investigation has been conducted, evidence has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
18 WP-19656-2025
collected, and a final report has been submitted. The grievance of the
petitioner pertains not to absence of investigation but to disagreement
with the conclusion thereof. Hence, the ratio of the said judgment does
not advance the petitioner's case.
Similarly, the judgment in Shakila Abdul Ghaffar Khan v. Vasant
Raghunath Dhoble (supra) was rendered in a factual context where the
investigation and prosecution were found to be deliberately deficient so
as to protect the accused. No such element of deliberate shielding or
institutional bias is borne out from the record of the present case. On the
contrary, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against erring officials
reflects corrective action rather than complicity.
The Constitution Bench judgment in State of West Bengal v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra) undoubtedly
recognizes the power of constitutional courts to direct investigation by
the CBI. However, the same judgment also emphatically cautions that
such power must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and not
in a routine or mechanical manner. The present case, though unfortunate
and tragic, does not disclose circumstances of such exceptional nature as
to justify displacement of the State's investigative machinery.
The other decisions relied upon by the petitioner are fact-specific
and were rendered in circumstances where the investigation was found
to be wholly lacking in credibility or public confidence. Those decisions
cannot be applied mechanically to the present case, where investigation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1670
19 WP-19656-2025
has progressed to its logical conclusion and statutory remedies remain
available to the petitioner under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This Court is not unmindful of the grief and hardship faced by the
petitioner due to the untimely demise of his son. However, constitutional
adjudication must be guided by settled legal principles and not by
emotional considerations. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to
reopen or re-investigate matters merely because an alternative inference
is possible or because the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no
justification to direct transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation or to grant any of the reliefs prayed for.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
