( 1 ) RULE. Mr. V. M. Pancholi, Ld. APP waives service of rule on behalf of opponents.

( 2 ) THIS application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thereinafter referred to as the Cr. P. C. ] to invoke inherent powers of this Court to quash and set aside order passed by the learned Add1. Sessions Judge, Fast Track court No. 2, Vadodara in Criminal revision Application No. 151 of 2002 dated 16th September, 2005, whereby the learned Judge confirmed the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16th August, 2002 below Exh. 5 in criminal Case No. 1036 of 1999. By the said orders the Courts below have rejected the application submitted by the present applicants for further investigation under section 173 (8) of the Cr. P. C. (1 ). Applicants are original accused of criminal case No. 1036 of 1999 pending on the file of the Ld. Chief Judicial magistrate, Vadodara. It is filed for the alleged commission of offences under sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code [ipc]. It appears that in pursuance of the FIR registered at c. R. No. 55 of 1998 at J P Road Police station, Vadodara on 21st December, 1998, the applicants apprehended that they would be arrested for the alleged commission of non-bailable offences, they, therefore, approached this Court for obtaining anticipatory bail, which was granted. At a later stage of the trial application at Exh. 5 was submitted to the Ld. Chief Judicial magistrate requesting him to order further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the cr. P. C. The said application was submitted on the ground that there was material to show mat the deceased was of very strange nature and for trivial matters, she used to lose her temper and while in such state of mind, she even used to threaten the applicants that she would commit suicide. Existence of such material was brought to the notice of the Police inspector, J P Road Police Station by one dilipsinh Morarbhai Vaghela, by his letter dated 24/12/1998. However, the concerned inspector did not take any steps to find out the truth. In view of the same, the applicants submitted application at Exh. 5 which was rejected, against which they preferred Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court and that also was rejected.

( 3 ) I have perused the record of this application and in particular the orders of the Courts below and also the letter dated 24th December, 1998. I have also heard miss Pandey, learned advocate appearing for Mr. B S Patel for the applicants and mr. V. M. Pancholi, Ld. APP for the opponents. Miss Pandey has submitted that the Courts below have committed error by not ordering investigation because the material pointed out by Mr. Dilipsinh is of importance and it is very necessary for the trial Court to have it on record to give just and proper decision in the case. (1 ). As against that, Mr. Pancholi, Ld. APP has submitted that considering the provisions of the Cr. P. C. , it is the choice of the prosecution to place reliance on the statements of particular witnesses and the defence cannot insist upon examining any particular person. He has, therefore, submitted that if the defence so intends, it can examine a particular person as its defence witness to bring on record the material on which the defence intends to place reliance.

( 4 ) IT is time and again decided by the different High Courts as well as the Apex court that the Investigating Officer has to carry out the investigation in fair, impartial and straightforward manner and in absolute legal way. No-doubt, in the present case, there is no complaint about the investigation as such. However, when certain material has been brought to the notice of the Investigating Agency, which may be essential for finding the truth in the case, it is the bounden duty of the investigating agency to collect such material and place it on the record. If that has not been done, it is the duty of the court to give appropriat