The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to transfer an investigation to the CBI based on the lack of professionalism and initiative in the local authorities' investigation.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. An antique bell, gifted by the Raja of Nepal to the then Viceroy of India in 1903, weighing around 30 Kgs fixed to a wooden frame weighing 50-60 Kgs displayed at the verandah of the main entrance of the Indian Institute of Advance Studies, Shimla was stolen in the morning of 22nd April, 2010. The antique bell has both aesthetic as well as carried antique value. On its being stolen, the authorities concerned lodged an F.I.R. comprised in Annexure P-2 with the Police Station concerned. The police authorities concerned on initiating an investigation into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 took to submit an untraced report comprised in Annexure P-5 before the Court concerned. Hence, the respondent No. 4 prayed to the Court concerned for a closure of the case. However, the petitioner filed objections comprised in Annexure P-6 before the Court concerned against respondent No. 3 seeking from the Court concerned the relief of acceptance by it of its proposal in the closure report of the stolen property being untraced, hence, investigations being ordered to be closed. The objections preferred by the petitioner herein to the proposal of respondent No. 3 in his closure report submitted before the Magistrate concerned for investigating into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 being ordered to be closed, were accepted by the Magistrate concerned who directed the respondent No. 4 to carry out further investigations into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2.

2. The petitioner through the instant writ petition has prayed that given the unsatisfactory besides tardy investigation having been carried out by the respondents No. 1 to 4 into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2, this Court direct that investigations being handed over to CBI. The respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a detailed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that after the Magistrate concerned having directed respondents No. 1 to 4 to carry out reinvestigation into the offence constituted in Annexure P-2 they have thereafter taken to interrogate persons who have been previously involved in theft cases registered at Police Station, West Shimla. Further, there is a portrayal therein that certain persons who were earlier arrested in the case, namely, Harish Verma and Kharag Singh are being interrogated. Moreover, Sushil Kumar, Dharam Pal, Lokesh and Laxmi Ram have also been disclosed in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the writ petition to have been interrogated as they are involved in the sale and purchase of antique items. Even, one G.S. Khera, undergoing judicial detention in Central Jail, Amritsar who is depicted therein to be involved in the sale and purchase of antique items along with Harish Verma, Prem Singh Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, is being concerted to be interrogated in connection with the theft of antique bell aforesaid stolen from the precincts of the Indian Institute of Advance Studies, Shimla. An F.I.R. qua the commission of theft of an antique bell from the precincts of Indian Institute of Advance Studies was lodged in the year 2010. The respondents No. 1 to 4 rather than having carried out an intensive and extensive investigation spread throughout the country by dispatching teams throughout the length and breadth of the country to nab the culprits, took to merely on suspicion interrogate Harish Verma, Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Kumar besides Chowkidar Kharag Singh. The efforts of respondents No. 1 and 2 to recover the stolen item were unsuccessful. Consequently, belatedly on 30.4.2013 an untraced report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate concerned which was, however, on objections to it having been preferred before it by the petitioner, rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, rather re-investigation was ordered to be carried out by the Judicial Magistrate in her renditions of 8.5.2015. Even the amplitude of re-investigation carried out by respondents No. 1 to 4 into the offen