Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that a direction be issued to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to conduct fair and impartial investigation in case arising out of FIR No.0161/2017 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC.

2. Number of petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are listed before this Court. It has been observed that without passing any detailed speaking order, on drop of hat, or on the whim and fancy of the supervisory officer, in the midst of investigation, when it has reached at a sensitive stage, investigating officer is changed. Change of the horse midstream is not appreciated. Supervisory officer ought to give reasons as to why investigating officer is required to be changed. Supervisory officer should examine the case diary and taking note of the deficiencies in the investigation should give guidance to the investigating officer as to in which direction, investigation ought to move.

3. In the present case in particular, no such procedure was followed. When accused Tara Chand Sharma approached D.C.P. (West), Jaipur, he transferred the investigation to SHO, Harmada. Later when complainant approached, D.C.P. (West), Jaipur, he transferred the investigation to ACP, Jhotwara. Everything should not be done due to the approach made by complainant or accused as it will show the police in poor light, especially when Jaipur Police with the limited infrastructure is performing a yeoman's job in the city, which is having numerous cases pertaining to property dispute.

4. Property dispute always has a monetary consideration and consequences. Supervisory officer should be careful and cautious while changing the investigation officer.

5. It has been noted that number of times, inquiry or investigating officer has been changed. Sometimes when accused has been found guilty, on the asking of accused investigating officer or inquiry officer has been changed sometimes when a police officer has recommended that Final Report in negative form be submitted on asking of complainant investigating officer or inquiry officer is changed. Due to change of investigating officer or inquiry officer not only course of investigation change but result too change sometimes totally opposite to the earlier view.

6. Similarly the next officer who is assigned investigation or inquiry formulate contrary view. How many time investigation should be conducted, how many times result of investigation should change, is something on which higher officer i.e. Commissioner of Police should ponder so that trust of the people in the premier investigating agency is not lost. Again and again if investigating officer or inquiry officer is changed and consequently with the change of officer, report also changes. This it itself lower the image of the police and cause trust deficiet.

7. In the above context, this Court had asked Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur to remain present in the court.

8. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur has stated that until there are compelling reasons, investigating officer shall not be changed and if the investigating officer is to be changed, a detailed speaking order will be passed giving reasons, pointing out deficiencies in the investigation and reasons shall be spelt as to why investigating officer ought to be changed. He has also assured this Court that in all pending investigations, which are more than one year old, report of investigation shall be submitted within two months after conclusion of investigation in the concerned court of competent jurisdiction from the receipt of certified copy of the order. He has submitted that in case there are compelling reasons, then only under the orders passed by him, extension of time to conclude the investigation shall be given beyond period of two months pertaining to cases where investigation is mo