Judgment 1. The petitioner herein/defacto complainant, who claims to be a Quasi-Government Association of United Arab Emirates dealing with purchase of vacant land, joint venture development and other allied businesses, is said to have entered into an agreement with the proposed accused/seller by name S.P. Velayutham for purchase of lands in and and around Tamil Nadu and in that regard, made payments to the said Velayutham to the tune of Rs.171 crores through cheques; but, neither lands were procured for the petitioner nor the money repaid, resulted in preferring a complaint to the police having jurisdiction as well as the Commissioner of Police. On the prime allegation that, in view of the influence and nexus the accused has with some high-ranking police officials, the complaints which deserve immediate attention and action on the part of the police, could not be taken up even in the normal course, the present petition has been filed before this Court seeking to direct the fourth respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to receive the petitioners complaint dated 14.02.2009 from the first respondent for registration of a case and proper investigation thereof or in the alternative to appoint a senior level officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police to register and investigate the case. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, are narrated in brief for better understanding. With reference to land deals between the purchaser/petitioner and the proposed accused/seller, three Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) dated 112. 2007, 23.01.2008 and 23.05.2008 were entered into, whereupon, the seller received a total advance sale consideration of Rs.171,11,00,000/-(Rupees One Hundred and Seventy One Crore and eleven lakhs only) from the purchaser in the following manner: A. Rs.20 crores paid by the purchaser with respect to MOU dated 112. 2007 i.e., i) Rs.5 crores, by cheque dated 01.08.2007 with No.000192, from IPN Management Consultancy Services Pvt. Limited. ii) Rs.15 crores by cheque dated 112. 2007 with No.030157; B. Rs.150 crores, by cheque dated 23.01.2008, No.000118, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, as advance consideration as per MOU dated 23.01.2008; and C. Rs.1.11 crores, by cheque towards Advance Sale Consideration. 2007 i.e., i) Rs.5 crores, by cheque dated 01.08.2007 with No.000192, from IPN Management Consultancy Services Pvt. Limited. ii) Rs.15 crores by cheque dated 112. 2007 with No.030157; B. Rs.150 crores, by cheque dated 23.01.2008, No.000118, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, as advance consideration as per MOU dated 23.01.2008; and C. Rs.1.11 crores, by cheque towards Advance Sale Consideration. Before receiving money, the proposed accused/intervener represented that his son-in-law is a directly recruited IPS Officer serving as Superintendent of Police at Nilgiris, his son-in-laws brother is a Deputy Commissioner of Police at Chennai and one of his close relatives is an Inspector General of Police, Tamil Nadu; thus, with their assistance and backing, the land deals would be made viable and profitable without any impediment or difficulty. Since the defacto complainant was in dire need of lands in and around Tamil Nadu, believing such representation, huge money as aforesaid was given to S.P. Velayutham. The proposed accused and three of his associates presented documents of the properties and, on site inspection and verification of the documents, it came to light that the proposed accused was not in possession of any of the lands he represented to have sold in favour of the complainant and that the MOUs were entered into with the complainant only to cheat and defraud him. Since the terms of MOUs could not be fulfilled, a deed of cancellation dated 24.06.2008 was entered into between the parties whereby it was agreed by S.P. Velayutham to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.171,11,00,000/-. Subsequently, S.P. Velayutham issued four cheques, for Rs.1.11, 5, 45 and 120 crores, dated 24.06.2008, 23.07.2008 and 212. 2008 with Nos.595244, 595241, 595242 and 595243 drawn on Axix Bank, Madipakkam. On presentation, the first cheque for Rs.1.11 crores was honoured while the second one returned on the ground that the signature of the drawer was not legible and the other two cheques were dishonoured with the endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. The petitioner, through letter dated 09.01.2009, requested the proposed accused to issue fresh cheque for Rs.5 crores and make arrangements to honour the other two cheques for Rs.165 crores. The petitioner, through letter dated 09.01.2009, requested the proposed accused to issue fresh cheque for Rs.5 crores and make arrangements to honour the other two cheques for Rs.165 crores. Since such request fell to deaf ears, a legal notice dated 03.02.2009 came to be issued, calling upon the proposed accused to pay the sum of Rs.165 crores in respect of the two cheques dishonoured on 09.01.2009 within fifteen days from the date of the notice, failing which, to face legal proceedings. Since there was no response, a complaint, dated 14.02.2009, was preferred with the 2nd respondent against S.P. Velayutham and three others for having cheated the complainant and for surreptitiously retaining Rs.171 crores with them and hence, they are liable to prosecuted for various offences including the one punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 477 and 120-B IPC. However, the 2nd respondent refused to entertain the complaint and did not even give acknowledgment for having received the complaint. Therefore, a complaint was lodged with first respondent on 05.03.2009. Also, for the cause of action arising under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint was preferred on 09.03.2009 and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, in C.C. No.108 of 2009. Another complaint, dated 23.03.2009, was forwarded to the first respondent/Commissioner of Police through Registered Post wherein a reference has been made to the complaints dated 14.02.2009 and 05.03.2009. Since no prompt action was ever endeavoured to be taken by the police authorities, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition before this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by adverting to the following portions from the affidavit filed in support of the petition with reference to the allegations against the accused and the police officials, 4. The petitioner was approached by S.P. Velayutham, promising and representing that S.P. Velayutham has vast extents of landed properties in and around the state of Tamil Nadu and has been doing business either as a real estate agent or as power of attorney holder or as agreement holder, besides representing that the son-in-law of S.P. Velayutham is Mr. The petitioner was approached by S.P. Velayutham, promising and representing that S.P. Velayutham has vast extents of landed properties in and around the state of Tamil Nadu and has been doing business either as a real estate agent or as power of attorney holder or as agreement holder, besides representing that the son-in-law of S.P. Velayutham is Mr. A.G. Babu a directly recruited IPS Officer and serving as the Superintendent of Police of a Nilgiri district, while the brother of his son-in-law is the Deputy Commissioner of Police at Chennai and another close relative is the Inspector General of Police in Tamil Nadu and through their patronage and assistance all dealings in the lands would be both viable and profitable without any problem. j. ‘Having thus been cheated by S.P. Velayutham and his three associates with the active patronage, assistance, collusion and in conspiracy with son-in-law of S.P. Velayutham, Mr. A.G. Babu a directly recruited IPS officer, the brother of S.P. Velayutham’s Son-in-law, a Deputy Commissioner of Police at Chennai and close relative of S.P. Velayutham, a high placed police official, who have also played mediation roles in the cheating episodes of S.P. Velayutham and his three associates and promised to return back the entire money by convincing S.P. Velayutham & his three associates.’ 5. ‘In the complaint also the role played by the son-in-law of S.P. Velayutham, a directly recruited IPS officer, the brother of S.P. Velayutham’s son-in-law, a Deputy Commissioner of Police at Chennai and close relative of S.P. Velayutham, a highly placed police official were also brought out (vide Document No.11 of the Typed set of Papers). Ultimately the same was not acted upon.’ and in parallel, pointing out the following allegation in the complaint, dated 05.03.2009, preferred to R-1, to the effect, ‘We state that when we have approached the police authorities the said attempt had been continuously hampered by the relatives of the said S.P. Velayutham, who are in police service. We state that on 14.02.2009, when the local police was approached in the matter for registering a case against the said S.P. Velayutham & three others and to deal with them according to law, the only answer was that they cannot entertain the complaint since it involves huge sums invested on the properties and that the properties are situated outside the jurisdiction. The said local Police Station viz., Station House Officer viz., The Inspector of Police, Abhiramapuram Police Station did not even give acknowledgment for having received the complaint. We state that admittedly the said S.P. Velayutham & three others are backed by the top police officers of the Government of Tamil Nadu.", submits that this is a peculiar case where all the allegations put forth against the proposed accused/intervener S.P. Velayutham are borne out by records; that the accused entered into three MOUs with the complainant; that, since the accused could not purchase the lands in favour of the complainant as per the agreement, deed of cancellation has been entered into between the parties, pursuant to which, for the advance amount received, cheques were issued, thus, it was promised that, by presentation of the cheques, the amounts will be settled as provided in the deed of cancellation; that, thereafter, the accused failed to repay the money and exerted influence through the top ranking police officials to see that the petitioner is deprived of a fair inquiry at the hands of the local Police; that is the reason why the first complaint lodged with the 2nd respondent could not be taken on file and since the first respondent also, even though was apprised of the extraordinary situation emerged in the case due to the influence exerted, did not take the matter with all seriousness; and that, having left with no other alternative, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. It is further submitted that initiation of proceedings for dishonour of cheque under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution under the penal law, for, the present one relates to cheating, fraud, misrepresentation etc. which acts altogether different from the scope of the special enactment. One of the cheques viz., the one issued for Rs.5 crores was returned with an endorsement signature not legible. The accused did not choose to reply for the statutory notice for dishonor of the two cheques for Rs.165 crores nor issued fresh cheque for Rs.5 crores. Unless a case is registered with all seriousness and investigation proceeds in a proper perspective, involvement of the other accused, who colluded with the proposed accused with an intention from the inception to defraud and cheat the petitioner, may not come to light. Unless a case is registered with all seriousness and investigation proceeds in a proper perspective, involvement of the other accused, who colluded with the proposed accused with an intention from the inception to defraud and cheat the petitioner, may not come to light. That is why at the first instance, complaint was lodged with R-2 and when he could not even acknowledge receipt of the complaint, with a fond hope that the top-most administrative head of the Police Agency at Chennai viz., Commissioner of Police, would impartially direct for an independent investigation being done by a competent officer, complaint was also preferred to him, but the manner in which the complaint of the petitioner was dealt with would show that, unfortunately, the first respondent also did not endeavor to set the investigation in motion as expected of him. 3-A. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the complaint to the 2nd respondent was given as early as on 14.02.2009 and to the first respondent on 05.03.2009, 2nd complaint was forwarded to the first respondent on 23.03.2009 which was acknowledged by R-1’s office on 25.03.2009; in the meantime, private complaint invoking the provisions of special enactment (NI Act) was filed on 09.03.2009; and the contemporaneous dates of filing of the complaints cannot be disputed. The present petition filed on 30.03.2009 came up for enquiry before this court on 31.03.2009 and on 01.04.2009 it was represented by the learned Government Advocate that the matter is at enquiry stage without having registered a case. On 03.04.2009, it was represented that the first respondent has forwarded the complaint to the Central Crime Branch, whereupon, a case has been registered by the Inspector of Police attached to CCB and investigation is on the track. According to the learned Senior Counsel, when serious allegations have been made against high ranking police officials, the first respondent should have applied his mind and deputed an equally ranking officer at least to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations so as to come to a conclusion one way or the other. But unfortunately, he forwarded the complaint to the CCB culminating in investigation by an officer in the rank of Inspector of Police. But unfortunately, he forwarded the complaint to the CCB culminating in investigation by an officer in the rank of Inspector of Police. Thus, it is ex facie apparent that the act of the first respondent in purposely neglecting to react properly to the seriousness of the allegations made, particularly when materials aspects are borne out by records, would only divulge the mala fide intention on his part. He importunately pleads that inasmuch as criminal prosecution is sought for against an accused, who is highly powerful since he happens to be a close relative of some of the top-level police officials of the State Government and who is wielding much influence thereby having the potential to stall and even cripple the investigation at the preliminary level, in the interests of justice, the task of investigation may be entrusted to CBI. 3-B. Learned Senior Counsel mainly relied on the case law reported in 1985(1) SCC 317 (State of W.B. v. Sampat Lal) wherein the requirement of ‘consent of the Government’ as outlined in Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (in short ‘Act’) for exercising jurisdiction under Section 5 of that Act was discussed and submitted that in the present case, the plea of consent is not at all raised. He referred to the following observation made therein as to the independent power of the High Court/Supreme Court in ordering CBI investigation in deserving cases to uphold the interests of justice, ‘13. when a direction is given by the Court in an appropriate case, consent envisaged under Section 6 of the Act would not be a condition precedent to compliance with the Court’s direction. In our considered opinion, Section 6 of the Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position.’ 3-C. Learned Senior Counsel cited the case law reported in AIR 1994 SC 1033 (Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police) wherein it has been held that the consent of the State Government as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act is not necessary before directing investigation by the CBI. 3-D. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision reported in 1995 (1) L.W. (Crl) 272 (Ramanathan v. State), wherein, a single Judge of this Court, having regard to the factual aspects involved therein, after observing, "The non-registration of the case for eight months and wrong recording of the statement of S and the inaction by the Police Authorities in spite of several complaints, give rise to three irresistible inferences, viz., (1) Police was desultory and lackadaisical; (2) Lack of appreciation and the emergent need to get at the truth in spite of representation, Newspaper Publication, courts order, etc., and (3) Investigation not bona fide and aimed to shield officers", held that, normally, investigation should not be taken from the hands of the State police machinery, which is a statutory agency, but, due to certain lapses in conducting investigation, all that this Court could do, in the interests of instilling confidence in the machinery, meant for maintaining law and order, is to order investigation by the C.B.I. 4. Learned Government Advocate points out that the case was listed on 31.03.2009; again, it was taken up for enquiry on 01.04.2009; adjournment was sought to receive instructions from the first respondent; and on 02.04.2009, when arguments were advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it was replied by him that he would request the learned Advocate General to advance arguments on the question of law pertaining to the power of the High Court to transfer investigation to the CBI without the consent of the State Government. He submits that never a complaint was preferred with the 2nd respondent as stated by the petitioner. He further states that on 03.04.2009, Mr. Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel, appeared on behalf of the proposed accused and sought permission to intervene in the case and requested for adjournment of the matter on 06.04.2009. Learned Government Advocate submits that, the matter standing thus, he received further instructions and filed counter to the effect that investigation has been taken up by the Inspector of Police, CCB, after the complaint was forwarded to that Wing by R-1 and therefore, since the investigation is now onset and being pursued by an officer of the Special Branch, the same need not be disturbed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Public Prosecutor-in-charge) also appeared on behalf of the respondents and made submission in the same lines and both of them repeatedly stressed that the Police Officers mentioned by the petitioner never interfered with the process at any stage and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner may be rejected. According to them, transfer of investigation to CBI could be ordered only if the court comes to an emphatic conclusion that the investigation conducted by the state investigating agency is improper. In the case on hand, the allegation against the police officers is flimsy and no rare and exceptional case is made out, warranting exercise of jurisdiction by this court to order transfer. Prima facie case having been made only as against S.P. Velayutham, merely because of the reason that some of his relatives happened to be top ranking police officials, investigation cannot be transferred without any basis. They submitted that a batch of petitions challenging the powers of the High Court ordering CBI inquiry without the consent of the state government concerned are pending decision by a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and further, since investigation is being pursued now, the issue need not be gone into further and there is no need to transfer the investigation to CBI. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the intervener, requesting this Court to receive the submissions on behalf of the proposed accused as an intervener, though made an attempt to project the points elaborately by placing several case laws, ultimately conceded on the proposition that the proposed accused need not be heard at the time of investigation. However, he submitted that the alleged offence is said to have taken place within the territory of Tamil Nadu, under such circumstances, without the consent of the State Government, investigation of a case cannot be transferred to CBI. By relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.), it is submitted that such exercise can be done only in rare and exceptional cases and merely because a party makes some allegations, transfer cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. By relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.), it is submitted that such exercise can be done only in rare and exceptional cases and merely because a party makes some allegations, transfer cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. Referring to the case law in Secretary v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521 , it is submitted that the High Court must reach a conclusion on the basis of pleadings and materials on record that a prima facie case is made out against a person and merely because a party made allegations against a person, CBI cannot be directed to investigate as to whether a person committed an offence, as alleged or not. In lines with the submission made by the learned Government Advocate and the Additional Public Prosecutor, adverting to the decision reported in 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 100 (State of W.B. v. Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights), wherein, the Honble Apex Court with reference to the question whether the court can order the CBI, an establishment created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, to investigate a cognizable offence which is alleged to have taken place in a State without the consent of that State Government", learned Senior Counsel submits that since the consent aspect is referred to a larger Bench of the Apex Court, till the disposal of the case, transfer of the case cannot be effected. 6. I have meticulously considered the rival submissions made on either side with reference to the materials available on record and the circumstances involved. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether, in the given situation and circumstances involved, it is absolutely necessary to transfer the investigation to CBI. 7. 6. I have meticulously considered the rival submissions made on either side with reference to the materials available on record and the circumstances involved. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether, in the given situation and circumstances involved, it is absolutely necessary to transfer the investigation to CBI. 7. Before proceeding to the relevant question, it is of much relevance to deal with the ancillary issue viz., whether reference of a question of law, having some relevance to the issue in hand and of course, arising in a case having its peculiar facts and circumstance, to a larger Bench by the Supreme Court would be a deterrent to decide on the question involved before the High Court particularly when the respondents/R-1 to R-3, who anxiously, with all seriousness, represented to argue the legal aspects in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court by which reference was made and sought an adjournment for appearance of the Advocate General before this Court but later, turned aside to represent obstinately that the matter may be closed since a case has been registered. The State did not even choose to project their arguments with reference to the actual and legal issues and also, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner did not touch the brink of consent aspect and he reiterated, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court, that this Court has ample powers to pass appropriate orders to avoid failure of justice. It is pertinent here to refer to the following passages from the decision of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan ( (2001) 3 SCC 333 ), "13. Section 5 of the Delhi Act enables the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Police Establishment to any area in a State. Section 6 of the Delhi Act says that: ‘6. Section 5 of the Delhi Act enables the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Police Establishment to any area in a State. Section 6 of the Delhi Act says that: ‘6. Nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.’ A contention was made before us that when the State Government gives consent for CBI to investigate any offence within the area of the State it would be permissible for the Magistrate to direct the officer of CBI to conduct such investigation. What is envisaged in Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Act is not one of conferring power on a Magistrate to order CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of Section 156(3) of the Code. 14. True, powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 142(1) of the Constitution can be invoked, though sparingly, for giving such direction to CBI to investigate in certain cases, (vide Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn.3 and Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub-Inspector of Police4). A two-Judge Bench of this Court has by an order dated 10-3-1989, referred the question whether the High Court can order CBI to investigate a cognizable offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf under Section 6 of the Delhi Act. 15. In Mohd. Anis v. Union of India5 Ahmadi, J. (as his Lordship then was) has observed thus: (SCC pp.148-49, para 6) ‘6. True it is, that a Division Bench of this Court made an order on 10-3-1989 referring the question whether a court can order CBI, an establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, to investigate a cognizable offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf. In our view, merely because the issue is referred to a larger Bench everything does not grind to a halt. In our view, merely because the issue is referred to a larger Bench everything does not grind to a halt. The reference to the expression ‘court’ in that order cannot in the context mean the Apex Court for the reason that the Apex Court has been conferred extraordinary powers by Article 142(1) of the Constitution so that it can do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.’ (emphasis supplied) Thus, there is no embargo for this Court to proceed to consider the prayer with reference to the circumstances involved and various aspects adverted to through pleadings and typed set of papers. 8. One another allied aspect to be dealt with is the locus standi of the proposed accused to participate in the proceedings at this stage. The Supreme Court, in AIR 1993 SC 1082 (Union of India vs. W.N. Chadha), having regard to the submission made by Additional Solicitor General therein with regard to the rule of audi alteram partem, after referring to the following observation of the Allahabad High Court viz., "Thus, it has been recognised by Judges of undoubted eminence that a decision on substantive rights of parties is one thing and a mere decision that another body investigate and decide on those substantive rights is quite another, and the principle of hearing is not applicable to the latter class of cases", ruled thus, "92. More so, 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 Section 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. In case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are various judicial pronouncements to this effect but we feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out that there are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under certain specified circumstances." 9. Free and fair investigation is the Fundamental right of a citizen under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and courts i.e., Supreme Court and High Courts, can entertain petitions for CBI investigation only in case of violation of Fundamental rights of a citizen. The only requirement for the court while weighing the prayer is to examine and analyse the case as to whether it is a rare and exceptional one where such relief should be granted in the interests of justice and to avoid resultant grave injustice in the event of denial of the prayer. 10. In the case on hand, the sequence of events before filing of the present petition and immediately subsequent thereto would throw light to discern the actual state of affairs for better assessment. It is alleged that initially, a complaint dated 14.02.2009, was made to R-2 and it was not even acknowledged even though presented in person since the superior officer (Deputy Commissioner of Police) of the Station House Officer happened to be a close relative of the main accused. The said superior officer could not be approached; therefore, a complaint was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police on 05.03.2009. In the meantime, the complainant experienced threat and harassment at the hands of the police. Simultaneously, the complainant preferred a complaint against the main accused under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. Commission of the offence by the main accused in collusion with other accused has been mentioned even in the Notice issued to the main accused. Initiation of prosecution under the special Act does not take away the rights of the complainant to initiate criminal action for the offences punishable under penal law. Commission of the offence by the main accused in collusion with other accused has been mentioned even in the Notice issued to the main accused. Initiation of prosecution under the special Act does not take away the rights of the complainant to initiate criminal action for the offences punishable under penal law. Since collection of materials, inclusion of other accused and investigation by a competent agency are very much required, the complainant forwarded another complaint dated 23.03.2009 to R-1 through registered post wherein the earlier complaints as well as the proceedings under Section-138 of the Act have been mentioned. Admittedly, such complaint has been received by the Commissioner of Police on 25.03.2009, however, a case was not registered. Having exhausted all the available modes, the petitioner has preferred the present petition on 30.03.2009. The matter was taken up for enquiry by this Court on 33. 2009 and stood adjourned to 01.04.2009 on which date, arguments were advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate represented that the matter may be adjourned enabling him to bring the Advocate General for making submissions on legal issues. Of course, though the matter was directed to be adjourned on the next date of hearing at the instance of the intervener, it was projected as if that the State is very much anxious to seriously argue the matter by meeting the points on legal issues. But, on 06.04.2009, by filing a counter affidavit, it was represented on behalf of the State that the first respondent forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, CCB, on whose direction, a case has been registered by the Inspector of Police attached to CCB and he is pursuing the investigation; hence, the matter may be closed. In this particular matter, this Court could discern the cliquish attitude of the state police agency in being heedless and moving the process at a snail space before filing of this petition and acting with an extraordinary swiftness and vigor once the matter is taken up for enquiry here. In this particular matter, this Court could discern the cliquish attitude of the state police agency in being heedless and moving the process at a snail space before filing of this petition and acting with an extraordinary swiftness and vigor once the matter is taken up for enquiry here. Seemingly, the Investigating Officer who was supervised by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB, is projected in the counter to have ceaselessly pursued the investigation for two days i.e., 04.04.2009 and 05.04.2009 by running behind the complainant whose office remained closed on those two days on account of Saturday and Sunday and ultimately it was endeavored to project as if the petitioner is not available and the police is making arduous efforts to secure him to procure his statement. The counter speaks a lot about the pointless endeavor taken to blame the complainant and to patch up the unusual inertness on the part of the police. Undoubtedly, the circumstances clearly point out the bias with which the state police, from subordinate level to administrative head, behaved with partisan attitude to protect and veil some of their officers from being exposed to legal action. The repeated admonition of the Apex Court that, soon after receipt of a complaint which constitute a cognizable offence, it is the bounden duty of the police office to register case and investigate, is conveniently given a go-bye in the case. 11. Another vital aspect to be pointed out is that, during the course of arguments on 01.04.2009, it was stated by the learned Government Advocate that an FIR need not be registered and a petition inquiry is pending. Conducting petition enquiry in matters pertaining to cognizable offences of serious nature has been deprecated by the Apex Court on very many occasions. If really the first respondent had applied his mind without any bias, in all probability, having regard to the allegation made against the officers one of whom is a Deputy Commissioner of Police working under him, he would have himself conducted a preliminary enquiry before even passing on the task to be done by his subordinates. It is agonizing to note that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB, without even conducting an independent enquiry by herself, mechanically forwarded the same to be investigated by an Inspector of Police. It is agonizing to note that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB, without even conducting an independent enquiry by herself, mechanically forwarded the same to be investigated by an Inspector of Police. I am of the considered view that if the investigation is allowed to continue in this fashion, certainly, the present Officer, who has to investigate into the allegations against his superior officers, will come to an erroneous conclusion as if it is a matter of civil nature, for, it glaringly appears, only with such intention, the F.I.R. has been registered. It must also be pointed out that, on a perusal of the complaint, it appears that the transaction is borne out by records. The accused S.P. Velayutham has received huge money after entering into MOUs and reference has been made about those MOUs in the complaint. Since the terms of the agreement could not be carried out, a deed of cancellation has been executed, whereby, it was agreed that the proposed accused having received the money through cheques would return the same in the same manner. Curiously, cheque for Rs.5 crores was returned on the ground signature not legible which clearly spell out the dishonest intention prima facie on the part of the accused. All the cheques were presented for collection only after duly informing the accused. The statutory notice issued under the provisions of the Special Act did not evoke any reply. Only under such circumstances, complaints came to be made before the police and when it transpired that the police would never proceed in the right direction with the conscience and vigor as expected from them, having left with no other option, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In the present case, the procedure adumbrated under Section 36 and 154 (3) has been strictly adhered to. The private complaint preferred under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act was only against the main accused viz., S.P. Velayutham, whereas, the criminal prosecution now sought to be launched for alleged offences punishable under the Penal Code, is with a view to bring the main accused, his associates and his veiled patrons in the Police Department before justice. Thus, I have no hesitation to conclude that prima facie, the offences alleged are made out. 12. Thus, I have no hesitation to conclude that prima facie, the offences alleged are made out. 12. Though the proposed accused do not have locus standi for getting impleaded at the stage of investigation, efforts were made by engaging senior counsels to convince this court that the investigation should take its own course and that there is no special case made out to order investigation by CBI. I can understand such a plea by the accused, but, it is unfortunate that such a submission has been made by the Government Advocate/Additional Public Prosecutor, for, on instructions from the State, he should have fairly represented that, in view of the serious allegations made and the same having been borne out by records, the investigation would be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police; on the contrary, a vague and futile attempt has been made to project that the present case would not come under the purview of rare and exceptional case. I am of the view that this is a classic case where one can see the reverse activities on the part of police in going behind the complainant instead of apprehending the main accused, his associates and colluding patrons/relatives. Had there been timely action on the part of the police, by this time, they could have collected materials from the accused as well as through independent sources. 13. No doubt, CBI is an Establishment created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and the general rule is that investigation must be entrusted with the investigating agency within the local jurisdiction. If investigation has been taken up by the local agency of a particular state, it is improper to snatch away the task from their hands without even informing them the reasons for such exercise. But, is there any embargo on the Supreme Court or the High Court in transferring the investigation to a special agency when it is established with the available materials that in a given case, there is a total failure on the part of the state police in impartially proceeding with the investigation as expected of them and thereby, a great injustice would result to the complainant; the answer would be no, for the court has ample power to order so, to avoid injustice provided such power is exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases. The reluctance and hesitation on the part of R-1 translates a clear meaning that if the investigation is allowed to be handled by the State Machinery, it will undoubtedly end in grave injustice to the complainant. That is why the Supreme Court has held that in the event of the High court coming to a conclusion that it is a fit case for transfer of the investigation, consent from the State Government is not required at all. In the case on hand, bias having been attributed to the machinery of the State Government, it is the Court which alone can assess the matter with regard to various aspects and factors as referred to above and decide whether a direction needs to be issued. 14. On scrutinizing the contemporaneous materials produced by way of pleadings and typed set of papers by the petitioner, not having been controverted by the learned senior counsel for the main accused/intervener, dishonest intention is glaringly apparent on the face of the records against the main accused, his associates and some high ranking police officers of IPS cadre. The reluctance and hesitance on the part of the first respondent, registration of a case soon after the matter is taken up for inquiry by this court and apparent influence of the main accused in crippling the process of investigation due to his relationship with the police officers referred to, would unerringly lead to an irresistible conclusion that the state police have sufficiently protected the IPS officers who are closely related to the main accused. Taking note of the fact that even after registration of the case, the police could not even knock at the doors of the main accused, one can conclude that the main accused is still controlling the affairs through his relatives and patrons who are in power. In view of the compelling circumstances making out this case a rare and exceptional matter to transfer the investigation to the CBI, this court directs the first respondent to forthwith transmit the papers/records, if any, pending with him or CCB, to the Joint Director, CBI, Chennai. In view of the compelling circumstances making out this case a rare and exceptional matter to transfer the investigation to the CBI, this court directs the first respondent to forthwith transmit the papers/records, if any, pending with him or CCB, to the Joint Director, CBI, Chennai. Since huge money is involved and allegations are very serious in nature, the Director, CBI, New Delhi, is directed to depute an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police to conduct preliminary enquiry and thereafter, the task may be entrusted with an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The CBI should take into account the serious allegations made against the controversial police officers of the State and proceed strictly in a proper perspective, for, none is above law and if the theory of influence is allowed to rule over the police administration, then injustice would be rampant defeating the rule of law, sometimes even resulting in deprivation of judicial remedies to the victimized persons. The Registry, High Court, Madras, is hereby directed to forthwith (a) Despatch a copy of this Order to the Director, CBI, New Delhi, through EMS/Speed Post; and (b) Forward the Case Diary File (running to 81 pages) produced before this Court on 08.04.2009 pertaining to X.Cr. No.119 of 2009 on the file of Inspector of Police, CCB, Egmore, Chennai, along with a copy of this order to the office of the Joint Director, CBI, Chennai, in a sealed cover through a Special Messenger. It is further directed that the CBI shall endeavor to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible. 15. Petition is ordered accordingly. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.