Judgment :- Common Order: Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with three petitions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2005, the petitioner has filed two petitions viz., Crl.O.P.No.7005 of 2005 seeking for the relief of registering a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 01.03.2005 to the respondent namely the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second application filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7017/2005 is for the relief of a direction to the respondent namely C.B.I., Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 01.03.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lastly, the petitioner has also come forward with the petition in Crl.O.P.No.31375 of 2006 for the relief of transferring the investigation pending on the file of the fourth respondent namely the Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Chennai, in Cr.No.23 of 2005 to the file of the C.B.I., sixth respondent in Crl.O.P.No.31375 of 2006. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint in this case was given as early as on 24.06.2005 and till now, there is absolutely no progress whatsoever in respect of the investigation conducted by the fourth respondent police. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this matter involves huge amount of Rs.33/- Crores and further the petitioner has been put into great hardship and irreparable loss and he is having enough materials to substantiate his case as per the complaint given by the petitioner dated 24.06.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except arresting one accused, the investigating agency viz., the fourth respondent has not taken any further steps to arrest the other accused and also to collect any other materials in respect of the allegations levelled against the accused persons in the complaint dated 24.06.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended and brought to the notice of this Court about a letter dated 2. 2007 written by the fourth respondent police directing the petitioner to come for enquiry in respect of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended and brought to the notice of this Court about a letter dated 2. 2007 written by the fourth respondent police directing the petitioner to come for enquiry in respect of the case. By placing reliance on this communication, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after filing the petition before this Court and only after the matter was taken up for hearing, the fourth respondent has taken steps to summon the petitioner in respect of the enquiry in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the communication clearly shows that the fourth respondent has not taken any steps in respect of the investigation in this case so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was orally informed by the fourth respondent that the complaint preferred by the petitioner was likely to be closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the communication dated 111. 2006 by the Ministry of Finance to the petitioner discloses that already Canara Bank has given a similar complaint against the very same accused company to the C.B.I. and the same was registered on 17. 2006. .3. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has come forward with certain specific allegations levelled against the fourth respondent in his petition in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 specifically alleging that the present Investigating Officer is working hand in glove with the accused Mr. Siddhartha Ray with an ulterior motive of closing the case without any further investigation. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in para 10 of the petition, it is specifically stated that if the present investigating officer continues to handle the case, the fraud committed by the accused persons would not be brought to light. Therefore, in view of the above said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he will not get justice if the investigation continued by the fourth respondent herein. .4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the fourth respondent namely the Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Chennai, has taken all initiatives and conducted investigation effectively. .4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the fourth respondent namely the Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Chennai, has taken all initiatives and conducted investigation effectively. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that so far the investigating agency arrested one accused as early as on 111. 2005 itself and four other accused were now residing at abroad and the investigating agency also initiated effective steps to apprehend even those persons. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the investigating officer is under the process of collecting the materials and so far examined seven witnesses and the statements of those witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that all those witnesses are hailing from Delhi, Coimbatore and Hyderabad. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the investigating officer also seized certain documents in respect of the allegations contained in the complaint. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is absolutely no fault on the side of the investigating agency namely the fourth respondent herein. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the fourth respondent herein also stoutly denies the allegations and averments contained in para Nos.9 and 10 of the petition filed by the petitioner and it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that at no point of time, the fourth respondent herein has informed the petitioner to the effect that they are going to close the case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that in order to show the effective investigation done by the fourth respondent, viz., the Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Chennai, the fourth respondent periodically sending the remarks about the investigation to the higher officials, viz., the Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offences Wing, in respect of this case. 5. Mr. Vijayanarayan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first accused, who has already been arrested and released on bail also made certain submissions in respect of this matter. The learned Senior counsel for the first accused also pointed out certain aspects in respect of the merits involved in this matter. 6. 5. Mr. Vijayanarayan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first accused, who has already been arrested and released on bail also made certain submissions in respect of this matter. The learned Senior counsel for the first accused also pointed out certain aspects in respect of the merits involved in this matter. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., submitted that the C.B.I. is already over loaded with number of other important cases and as such, the present case need not be transferred to C.B.I. without any compelling reason. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner, viz., the defacto complainant already resorted to give a complaint before the State Police and the State Police is on the job of conducting investigation into the matter by nominating senior police officials, viz., Additional Superintendent of Police assisted with a special team of Inspectors of Police. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record including the petitions filed by the petitioner and other materials attached along with the petition by way of typed set. 8. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions mainly put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is relevant to state that as far as the accused persons are concerned, they have no locus standi to interfere in the matter of investigation. Though it is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that this Court while dealing with a case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is empowered to consider the matter in respect of the facts and circumstances of each case taking into consideration to secure the ends of justice and also to prevent the abuse of process of law, the accused persons may be allowed to put forward their submissions also, this Court is of the considered view that this Court can come to the conclusion by considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner namely the defacto complainant and as well as the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor keeping in mind the interest of justice and also to see that there should not be any abuse of process of law. The Honble Supreme Court also held in a case in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha reported in AIR 1993 SC 1082 that, "When the investigating officer is not deciding any matter except collecting the materials for ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out or not and a full enquiry in case of filing a report under S.173(2) follows in a trial before the Court or Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the report, it cannot be said that at that stage rule of audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation to issue a prior notice and hear the accused which the statute does not expressly recognise. The question is not whether audi alteram partem is implicit, but whether the occasion for its attraction exists at all. Under the scheme of Chap. XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are various provisions under which no prior notice or opportunity of being heard is conferred as a matter of course to an accused persons while the proceeding in in the stage of an investigation by a police officer. The accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under S.173(2) or in a proceedings instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under S.204 as the case may be." 9. In yet another decision in Central Bureau of Investigation and Another V. Rajesh Gandhi and Another reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 63, the Honble Apex Court held as follows: "8. There is no merit in the pleas raised by the first respondent either. The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract principles of natural justice. There is no merit in the pleas raised by the first respondent either. The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract principles of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with." Therefore, in view of the above well settled principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that it is suffice to consider the rival contentions of the petitioner as well as the submissions of the prosecution viz., the investigating agency, in order to decide whether the investigating agency in this case is effectively collecting the materials and conducted investigation. 10. It is not disputed by both sides that this case involves very serious allegation of cheating of the amount running to several crores. It is also pertinent to note further that the case itself involves number of transactions between several persons and some of the accused persons are residing abroad and therefore, it is quite natural for the investigating agency to take some reasonable time. The Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the first accused was arrested as early as in the month of November 2005 itself and so far, the investigating agency examined seven witnesses and recorded their statements and the investigating agency is in the process of collecting further materials and it is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer would take effective steps to complete the investigation as early as possible and to file the final report before the Court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has come forward with certain allegations levelled against the fourth respondent, viz., the investigating officer, to the effect that the fourth respondent, Investigation Officer, has orally informed the petitioner herein that he is going to close the complaint, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has chosen to come forward with such allegation only through a petition and he has not filed any affidavit. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also rightly denied such allegation contained in para Nos.9 and 10 of the petition and submitted that the fourth respondent has never stated to the petitioner herein that they were going to close the case. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also rightly denied such allegation contained in para Nos.9 and 10 of the petition and submitted that the fourth respondent has never stated to the petitioner herein that they were going to close the case. 11. It is also pertinent to note that the Honble Supreme Court of India has held in State of Karnataka V. Arun Kumar Agarwal and Others reported in (2000) 1 SCC 210 that mere suspicion is not enough for directing the investigation to be transferred to C.B.I. 12. In a recent decision in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services V. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another reported in AIR 2002 SC 2225 , the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "... the Court should not be guided by mere allegations alone and the petitioner should be able to make out a prima facie case in favour of the allegations before the High Court directs investigation by CBI..." It is further held as follows: "... a decision to direct an inquiry by the CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations." 13. In view of the above said well settled principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court as well as in view of the above said situation and circumstances as stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not able to put forward any compelling reason or made out a prima facie case to transfer the investigation from the file of the fourth respondent police to C.B.I. It is also pertinent to note that the fourth respondent is a superior police official, viz., Additional Superintendent of Police of Economic Offences Wing, and as such he is a competent police official to investigate a case like the instant case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., also expressed a strong view that C.B.I. cannot be flooded with all sorts of cases as already CBI is overburdened with other sensational and important cases. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., also expressed a strong view that C.B.I. cannot be flooded with all sorts of cases as already CBI is overburdened with other sensational and important cases. It is also fairly submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., that State police also cannot be considered to be inferior to C.B.I. and both the agencies are equally capable of conducting investigation in a case like this. 14. Therefore, considering the above said factual aspects and also the legal position, as laid down by the Honble Apex Court, this Court is constrained to dismiss the petition as devoid of merits. However, considering that the petitioner has come forward with certain apprehension, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice to direct the Investigating Agency, viz., fourth respondent herein to expedite the investigation and to complete the same and file the final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the Order of this Court. 15. Accordingly, all these Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.