1. - Aggrieved by the alleged unfair investigation being conducted by the police in the FIR, FIR No.147/2010, registered at Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, the petitioners have approached this Court. They have prayed that since the police has conducted an unfair investigation, therefore, the investigation should be transferred to CID (CB), Jaipur.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 02.12.2009, Smt. Jyoti Sharma, respondent No.2, was married to Kuldeep Sharma, petitioner No.5, according to Hindu customs and Rites. According to Smt. Jyoti Sharma, at the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry as per their capabilities. However, when Smt. Jyoti Sharma reached her matrimonial home, both her husband and her in-laws', including both of her sister-in-laws, namely Komal and Alka, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 respectively, started physically and mentally torturing her for dowry demands. Unable to bear their cruel behavior, eventually on 13.09.2010, Smt. Jyoti Sharma filed a complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate No.13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for further investigation, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the Police Station Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur. On the basis of the said complaint, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.147/2010, for the aforementioned offences. As mentioned above, the petitioners are aggrieved by the unfair investigation being done by the police. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, the FIR is a counter-blast to a civil suit filed by Mr. Gopal Lal Sharma, petitioner No.2, the father-in-law of the complainant, wherein he had clearly pleaded that he is willing to return the "stridhan", therefore, direction should be issued to the complainant to collect the "stridhan". Moreover, the FIR is a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by Kuldeep Sharma against Smt. Jyoti Sharma. Secondly, the filing of the civil suit by the father-in-law clearly establishes his fairness in wanting to return the "stridhan" to Smt. Jyoti Sharma. Thirdly, all the family members have been roped in, including two sister-in-laws. This clearly shows that the FIR has been lodged to wreak personal vendetta. Fourthly, relying on the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667 , the learned counsel has contended that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that the cases under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are more or less frivolous cases. Therefore, even this Court should be alive to the possibility that the case is a frivolous one. Lastly, since the petitioners have lodged complaints against the police, both before the Principal Secretary to the Government as well as to the Director General of Police, vide representations dated 28.10.2010 and dated 01.11.2010 respectively, the police has decided to carry out an unfair investigation. Therefore, the investigation should be transferred to an independent investigating agency like the CID(CB).

4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, has strenuously argued that merely because complaints were made against the conduct of the police officers, it is not a valid reason for transferring the investigation to the CID(CB). Secondly, the petitioners have not been able to prove that an unfair investigation is being conducted by the police. Thirdly, a bare perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that sufficient allegations have been made against Kuldeep Sharma and his family members, including the two sister-in-laws. Fourthly, the defence that FIR is merely a counter-blast cannot be accepted at the initial stage. Lastly, the investigation is the prerogative of the police. Thus, this Court should not interfere with the investigation process under