Judgment : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. This writ appeal is directed against an interim order passed in WPMP No.29078 of 2005 dated 5.12.2005, refusing to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in a criminal case in C.C.No.7617 of 2004 pending on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, pending the disposal of the writ petition. While admitting the Writ Appeal, an interim stay of all further proceedings in the said criminal case was granted by another Division Bench of this Court and the sixth respondent herein was also directed to submit a status report with regard to the investigation done by him into the death of the brother of the appellant. Subsequently, status reports were filed by the sixth respondent and hence the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing along with the writ appeal, by consent of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondents 1 to 7. 2. The brief facts leading to the above writ petition and the writ appeal as pleaded by the appellant, are as follows: a) The appellant herein who is the petitioner in the writ petition and who shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘writ petitioner’, for the sake of convenience, is a practicing advocate, whose brother, also a practicing advocate, died on 7.12.2003 in what is till now projected to be a road traffic accident. Suspecting that it was a case of cold blooded murder and not one of a simple road traffic accident, the writ petitioner started probing into the matter. b) In short, the suspicion of the writ petitioner revolved around some insurance agents and their friends, who, according to the writ petitioner devised a plan to create bogus life insurance policies and made good a huge amount as claim amount. c) The basis for the suspicion of the writ petitioner was that his mother received a cheque for Rs.20,000/- on 20.11.2004 from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., describing the amount to be first instalment of the benefit rider. d) According to the writ petitioner, no claim for the insurance amount was ever made, but further enquiry revealed that within three days of the death, an insurance agent by name Charulatha S.Vasan had taken the left thumb impressions of his mother in blank forms and got them attested by his school drop out sister. d) According to the writ petitioner, no claim for the insurance amount was ever made, but further enquiry revealed that within three days of the death, an insurance agent by name Charulatha S.Vasan had taken the left thumb impressions of his mother in blank forms and got them attested by his school drop out sister. The writ petitioner was surprised at this piece of information since he himself is a practicing advocate and the deceased was also a practicing advocate and hence, without their knowledge and without even the death certificate being made available, a policy claim could not have been processed behind their back. e) Therefore, after lodging a protest to the insurance company on 24.11.2004, the writ petitioner presented a complaint in person to the Joint Commissioner of Police (North), Chennai on 15.12.2004. As per his directions, the writ petitioner met the Joint Commissioner of Police (Central), on 12.1.2005, who promised to have an investigation conducted into the matter by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Villivakkam. f) In the meantime, according to the writ petitioner, the insurance company sent a package to him but the Company instructed the courier agent not to deliver the package, before it could be actually delivered, which made the suspicion of the writ petitioner to grow more. g) The writ petitioner subsequently received a letter from the insurance company expressing inability to furnish copies of the documents requested by him in his letter dated 23.1.2004 and also stating that they would be contacting only the nominee under the policy for further course of action. h) Therefore, the writ petitioners mother, who is named as the ‘nominee’, sent a letter to the Chairman and Managing Director of Insurance Company, who is the nineth respondent herein on 8.2.2005, asking him to provide copies of certain documents. The writ petitioner also sent telegrams on 17.2.2005 to the second and third respondents herein to expedite the investigation into his complaint made to the fifth respondent, i) Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed criminal O.P.No.3695 of 2005 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for a direction to "“transfer his complaint from the fifth respondent herein to the Central Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of unearthing a life insurance scam. On 22.2.2005, the said petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court, directing the fifth respondent herein to inquire into the matter and transfer the investigation from the hands of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, to whom it was originally entrusted, to a competent Police Officer or constitute a Team if necessary and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. j) After waiting for six months for the Team constituted by the fifth respondent in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, to file a final report on the complaint, the writ petitioner became apprehensive about its out come, on the ground that the real culprits were forcing the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident to plead guilty for an offence under Section 304(A) IPC, in C.C.No.7617 of 2004 and that such closure of the criminal case would seal the fate of the investigation ordered by this Court. Therefore, the writ petitioner filed the above W.P.No.26657 of 2005 praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to transfer the investigation from the hands of the fourth respondent, to the Central Bureau of Investigation, for investigating the complaint dated 15.12.2004 given by him. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the trial of the criminal case in C.C.No.7617 of 2004. It is relevant to point out here that the writ petitioner had also filed an intervention application in the said criminal case. 3. After the writ petition was admitted, the fifth respondent filed a status report into this Court in September 2005 and the writ petitioner filed his objections to the said report, on the basis of certain discrepancies. Thereafter, the sixth respondent, who headed the Team of investigators, proceeded further with the investigation. At this juncture, the petition in WPMP 29078 of 2005, for stay of the trial of the criminal case in C.C.No. 7617 of 2004 was dismissed by the learned Judge by an order dated 5.12.2005 on the ground that there cannot be any stay of the trial pending disposal of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the writ petitioner filed the above appeal and the second respondent was directed to file a further status report. 4. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the writ petitioner filed the above appeal and the second respondent was directed to file a further status report. 4. Wehave heard, Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as the learned advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 7. 5. Since the complaint made by the writ petitioner is admittedly under investigation by the State Agency, though not to the satisfaction of the writ petitioner, we are unable to dwell deep into the facts of the case, as any observation made by us may be taken advantage of by any of the parties ultimately. Therefore, we propose to extract only such of those facts, as culled out from the pleadings of both parties without ourselves expressing any opinion or recording a finding. 6. In short, the grievance of the writ petitioner, as projected by Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for him, is that the writ petitioner suspects foul play in the death of his brother. The writ petitioner has also named certain persons on whom the needle of suspicion of the writ petitioner is pointed. The writ petitioner has furnished the names of the persons whom he suspects, in paragraph-2 of his complaint dated 15.12.2004 to the fifth respondent herein. He has also provided the clue as to the motive of the suspects for committing the heinous crime. According to the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, the conviction of the writ petitioner that his brother was a victim of a huge insurance fraud is so high that the family did not choose to file any motor accident claim petition for the death of the deceased, despite the fact that the deceased had a lucrative practice and died at the young age of 32 years. 7. 7. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 7 contended: i) that the transfer of investigation from the State Agency to the CBI cannot be ordered as a matter of routine, simply because some allegations have been made; ii) that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct an enquiry by the CBI can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion; iii) that it is not enough to have such material in the pleadings; iv) that the writ petitioner has not even made any allegations of mala fides or gross inefficiency on the part of the State Agency, except expressing doubts and apprehensions; and v) that the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.3695 of 2005 would operate as a bar for the present writ petition. 8. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, there are no sufficient materials before us to come to a conclusion that the investigation should be transferred to the CBI. But the contention of the learned advocate General that the order passed in the earlier petition for the same relief in Crl.O.P.No. 3695 of 2005 would operate as a bar for the writ petitioner seeking the same relief in the present writ petition, is not tenable. The earlier petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when the respondents had not even taken the complaints of the writ petitioner into file. After the order passed in Crl.O.P.No. 3695 of 2005 dated 22.2.2005, the complaint of the writ petitioner was taken on file and it was investigated into by a team of officials. The progress of such investigation belied the confidence of the writ petitioner, forcing him to file the present writ petition. Therefore on two grounds viz., (i) that an order passed in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be a bar for seeking a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the power of the Court under Article 226 is wide and discretionary and (ii) that at any rate, the present writ petition is on a subsequent cause of action, we are unable to countenance the said contention of the learned Advocate-General. Hence we conclude that the present writ petition is very much maintainable and the order passed in Crl.O.P.No. 3695 of 2005 will not operate as a bar for the writ petition. 9. It is true that the writ petitioner has not made serious allegations of mala fides against the respondents 1 to 7, but the writ petitioner has raised serious doubts about the manner in which the investigation has progressed, on account of various factors. As stated above, the writ petitioner has named some persons as suspects in his earliest complaint dated 15.12.2004 to the fifth respondent herein. He has also named the same persons in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his earlier petition in Crl.O.P.No.3695 of 2005. The writ petitioner has reiterated his suspicion about the very same persons in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition. 10. Therefore, the sixth respondent and the Team headed by him also appear to have made an investigation on the clues provided by the writ petitioner against those persons, as seen from the status reports filed by the fifth and sixth respondents. The sixth respondent has also filed a detailed affidavit on 21.8.2006 providing details of the investigation conducted by his Team and its outcome. In paragraph-40 of the said affidavit, the sixth respondent has stated that a total of 106 witnesses were examined. Some startling facts are revealed from the averments contained in paragraph-40 of the affidavit filed by the sixth respondent and in brief these facts are as follows: a) As per the first information report lodged by an eye witness, on 7.12.2003, the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling and the trailer lorry which hit him, were proceeding in the same direction. The inference that one could draw from such a first information is that the motorcycle of the deceased was hit from behind the back. This inference is also confirmed by the rough sketch drawn by the police in V. 5 Police Station Crime No.307 of 2003, showing both vehicles to be proceeding in the same direction one after another. The final report filed by the police on 27.1.2004 in the said Crime No. 307 of 2003 also says that the motorcycle was hit from behind the back and the said final report has been taken on file in C.C.No.7617 of 2004 by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate. The final report filed by the police on 27.1.2004 in the said Crime No. 307 of 2003 also says that the motorcycle was hit from behind the back and the said final report has been taken on file in C.C.No.7617 of 2004 by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate. But the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report showed extensive damage to the front wheel assembly, front fork, speedameter set, headlight and hand brake, front rest and crash bar, indicating thereby that there was a head-on collusion and both the vehicles were actually pitted against each other. b) The insurance claim in respect of one of the policies alleged to have been taken by the deceased, appears to have been processed without completing all formalities and without even the writ petitioner and his brothers knowing about the same. It is pertinent to point out here that the deceased was a practicing advocate, and the writ petitioner who is his brother is also a practicing advocate, but the left thumb impression of the mother in the claim forms appears to have been obtained by the insurance agent without the knowledge of the other family members except a school drop out sister. There are also discrepancies about the date and the manner in which the left thumb impression of the mother of the deceased was taken in the claim forms. Interestingly, the death occurred on the night of 7.12.2003 at about 20.20 P.M. at Chennai. The mother of the deceased who is living on the outskirts of the City at Chennai is said to have affixed her left thumb impression on a letter type-written in English addressed to the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, requesting for the issue of claim forms, on the very next day viz., 8.12.2003,. even before the body of her 32 year old son was handed over after post-mortem examination. Curiously, the insurance company processed the claim and ordered payment, after waiving the production of the death certificate, despite the fact that it was an ‘early claim’ in insurance parlance. c) It appears that the police have also come across a letter written by one A.Senthil Kumar, who is the first accused in Crime No.2777 of 2005 to one Charulatha S.Vasan, accused No.4 in the same crime number threatening to expose the said Charulatha S.Vasan, in the matter of death of the writ petitioners brother. c) It appears that the police have also come across a letter written by one A.Senthil Kumar, who is the first accused in Crime No.2777 of 2005 to one Charulatha S.Vasan, accused No.4 in the same crime number threatening to expose the said Charulatha S.Vasan, in the matter of death of the writ petitioners brother. It is pertinent to point out here that the same person viz., Charulatha S.Vasan happened to be the agent of the Insurance Company and she and her husband were cited as accused Nos.4 and 5 in crime No.2777 of 2005. d) The writ petitioner had made a specific allegation that the said Charulatha S.Vasan and her accomplices have taken several insurance policies in the name of the deceased from several insurance companies and that the investigation of the police should proceed to unearth a large scale insurance fraud, made by unscrupulous persons even without the knowledge of the family members of the deceased. But the investigation done by the Team headed by the sixth respondent, whose results are indicated in paragraph-40(e) does not appear to have gone with precision. e) The investigation by the police with the accused in Crime No. 2777 of 2005, as reflected in paragraph-41 of the affidavit of the sixth respondent sworn to on 21.8.2006, also does not appear to be sharp and focused, though it is apparent therefrom that the suspects are already involved in other crimes and one of them by name Senthil Kumar is already in jail in connection with another case. His letter from jail addressed to the insurance agent Charulatha S.Vasan makes the suspicion of the writ petitioner to be bona fide. But the contents of the paragraph-40 of the affidavit filed by the sixth respondent, show that the sixth respondent has thrown the burden on the writ petitioner to substantiate each and every statement made by him. This in our view is not a good investigation. 11. We are of the considered view that any investigating agency should take the lead from both what the witnesses say and what they conceal and take the trail along the clues provided by them. Any complaint given by a person to the Investigating Officer cannot be treated as a petition in a Court of law and the investigating agency is not expected to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the allegations in the complaint are not substantiated. Any complaint given by a person to the Investigating Officer cannot be treated as a petition in a Court of law and the investigating agency is not expected to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the allegations in the complaint are not substantiated. The allegations made in a complaint to a Police Officer are not intended to be substantiated or proved as in a Civil case or private criminal complaint. If a complainant has all the material evidence to substantiate his allegations, he would as well prefer a private complaint rather than seeking an investigation by the police. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the sixth respondent and his Team of officials that the complaint of the writ petitioner is not substantiated, in our opinion, is not as a result of a scientific investigation, though we do not wish to term it as perfunctory. 12. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the investigation shall be transferred from the sixth respondent to an Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police in the CBCID of the State Police, to be nominated by the head of the CBCID Wing of the State Police. Accordingly, the writ petition and the writ appeal are disposed of with the following directions: a) The investigation now being carried on by the sixth respondent and his Team of officials, in pursuance of the directions issued in Crl.O.P.No.3695 of 2005 dated 22.2.2005, shall be transferred to a Team of officials supervised by the Superintendent of Police CBCID, Chennai, to be nominated by the head of the CBCID Wing. b) The head of the CBCID Wing shall nominate an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police attached to CBCID to carry on the investigation, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order and the Officer nominated by him shall constitute a Team to work under his direct supervision within a week from the date of receiving nomination from the head of the CBCID Wing. c) All the records, case diaries and other documents including the statements recorded from the witnesses shall be handed over by the sixth respondent, under acknowledgment in writing, to the officer nominated by the head of the CBCID Wing, within a week of receiving intimation about the nomination of the Officer. c) All the records, case diaries and other documents including the statements recorded from the witnesses shall be handed over by the sixth respondent, under acknowledgment in writing, to the officer nominated by the head of the CBCID Wing, within a week of receiving intimation about the nomination of the Officer. d) The Team so constituted by the CBCID shall carry out the investigation without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment and shall file a final report within a period of three months from the date of constitution of the Team, before the appropriate Court. e) Till such time the CBCID Team completes the investigation and files a final report, the trial of the criminal case in C.C.No.7617 of 2004 shall not proceed further. 13. The writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected WAMP is closed.