Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. -- 1. This petition is by a desperate father, whose daughter Smt. Dr. Verma, married to respondent NO.1 Dr. Veer Bhan Verma, died under suspicious circumstances. As a letter petition it was filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. This Court under the writ jurisdiction, entertained the letter petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for seeking a direction of a fresh investigation that too, through some higher agency than Railway Police.

2. The deceased Dr. Neena Verma was married to respondent No.1 Dr. Veer Bhan Verma in the year 1977 and the dead body of Dr. Mrs. Neena Verma was found on the Railway track near Birla Nagar Railway Station, Gwalior, on 15.5.89.

3. On finding the dead body, Railway Police registered the case under 'Marg'. The respondents 1,2 and 3 on making search for her in the town, went to Lucknow to find Dr. Neena Verma on the assumption that she might have left to see her ailing father, i.e., the petitioner, but when she was not found at Lucknow, they returned back and on reaching Gwalior, they got the information that the dead body of Dr. Neena was recovered by Police at the Railway track. The autopsy was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the respondent No. 1 and 2 for funeral.

4. On investigating the Marg. the Police found that an offence under section 398-A/306 I.P.C. was committed by the respondents 1 and 2 as even from the version of petitioner and his wife Dr. Neena was being teased for poor dowry and subsequently on completing the investigation, the case was challaned against the respondent No.1 and his mother by the police in the Court, which was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

5. At the trial, charges were framed against respondent No.1 and his mother Smt. Bhagwan Devi. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, including Dr., who conducted the autopsy and the daughter and the son of the deceased.

6. The petitioner believes that his daughter deceased Dr. Neena Verma did not commit suicide nor met with any accident but she was done to death by respondent No.1, her husband, who was assisted by respondents 2 and 3. The respondent No.4 who investigated the offence also did not act impartially and did not make proper investigation else the petitioner believes that the true story of the murder of his daughter Dr. Neena Verma could have come to light and, therefore, the petitioner claims for a fresh investigation by some higher agency and seeks directions to this effect in that regard.

7. Since the Police after completing the investigation has filed the challan against respondent and his mother for the offences under section 498 A and 306 I.P.C., very strong grounds are required for directing re-investigation. For re-investigation of the case unless some fresh facts have come to light or an additional evidence has been discovered or there exist compelling fresh grounds, this Court would be slow in directing re- investigation. Therefore, it is to be seen whether in the case any of the conditions exist or not.

8. According to the petitioner some circumsk1nces have been pointed out to show the reasonable suspicion that if the circumstances are believed the death of Dr. Neena Verma could not be a case of suicide or of accident but a case of murder alone. Amongst those circumstances, a strong motive is also suggested against the respondent No.1 of his love affair with respondent No.3, who is not an accused at the trial. Respondent No.3, is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, she being wife of his deceased son who had settled at Bombay and after his death respondent No.3, shifted to Gwalior or rather was brought to Gwalior by respondent No. 1.

9. Her elder daughter is taking medical education in Medical College, Gwalior. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 1 had affair with respondent No.3 and on that count the relations between him and his wife deceased Dr. Smt. Neena Verma were strained. For removing the hurdle from his way, respondent No.1 with the h