Sri Narendra Prasad, learned Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent 1.

2. The petitioner’s daughter met with an unnatural death. The case of the petitioner is that his daughter one Madhuri, a law graduate also enrolled as an Advocate at Andhra Pradesh Bar Council. She was married to the 4th respondent and she was residing with the 4th respondent and his family members. During their wedlock, two daughters were born. It is the case of the petitioners that his daughter always used to inform the petitioner that the 4th respondent and his family members were harassing her to bring additional dowry. It appears, the petitioner tried to meet all the demands of the respondents 4 to 7. On 7-2-2003 the petitioner received a call that his daughter had committed suicide in the house in Sanjayanagar. Indeed, this came as a shock to the petitioner and they did not believe the said information. According to the petitioner, his daughter was a strong natured, bold brave and enthusiastic girl, apart from being an Advocate. It appears, a complaint was lodged, but, however the same was not investigated. Hence, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same was referred to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. After due investigation, a charge-sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-b and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the petitioner is that the charge-sheet is filed against few of the accused. According to the petitioner, the investigation was tardy and hence he filed Cri. P.No.4151 of 2003 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said criminal petition with certain observations to the effect that if the petitioner has grievance about the investigation conducted by the police, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Court below and to proceed in accordance with law. It appears, thereafter the matter was referred to the core of detectives and after further investigation, the COD found that the investigation conducted by the CCB was just and proper and endorsed the investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Sri Mahesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation was sloppy, inasmuch as certain materials were not considered. He further submits that this is a fit case where the investigation is required to be entrusted to C.B.I.

4. Sri Narendra Prasad, learned Government Pleader submits that an opportunity was reserved to the petitioner in the earlier criminal petition to approach the Court below for appropriate relief.

5. I have perused the papers. Apparently, the Apex Court has ruled that it is within the domain of the Courts to refer the matter to the C.B.I. for investigation. But, however, that is required to be done in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine investigations are required to be entrusted to C.B.I.

6. I am of the view that this is not a case where such exceptional circumstances exist for referring the investigation to the CBI. It is also to be noticed that the incident has taken place on 7-2-2003 i.e., little over 7 years. At this point of time, the question of referring the matter to the C.B.I. for further investigation does not arise.

7. But, however, if the petitioner is apprehensive that the investigation done by CCB or by COD is not satisfactory, it is always open for the petitioner to make an necessary application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Indeed, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate.

8. Indeed, the Ap