Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the Criminal Original Petition to transfer the case in Crime No.1039 of 2007 from the file of the third respondent to CBCID for a fair and impartial investigation in the interest of Justice. 2. The petitioner has stated in his petition that he is residing at No 18, Perumal Koil Street, Pallikuppam, Chennai – 77. He left his house for work. His wife, a three month pregnant women, was alone at home. Due to Morning sickness, she was taking rest inside the House. She suddenly woke up to see the house on fire. When she came out of the house, she saw Raghu, Suresh, Pandian and Murugan running after setting the house on fire. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the third respondent and narrated the said incident stating that the said Raghu and his accomplice were the persons who caused the fire. Further, there is also a civil dispute between the petitioner and the said Raghu. As alleged in the complaint, he had lost property worth Rs.6 lakhs. The third respondent, without implicating the above said culprit and forced him to register the complaint as an act of God. Further, the third respondent told the petitioner that nothing could be done on the said incident. The above said Raghu and his accomplice were seen fleeing away from his house after setting the house on fire and the eyewitnesses have pinpointed them for the cause of fire. Further, the petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice from the hands of the respondent. Further, the said Raghu and his mother had trespassed into his property, for which the petitioner lodged a complaint before the third respondent police on 06.06.2007. No proper action was taken on the said complaint. 3. Further, the third respondent is acting in a predetermined manner in favour of the culprit Raghu. As such, the investigation of the case by third respondent is not in a fair manner and hence the petitioner seeks transfer of the case. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter statement stating that on the petitioners complaint, case has been registered in Crime No.1039 of 2007. The petitioner does not know the reason for fire. Anyhow, the third respondent took up the case for investigation and also visited the occurrence place, made a rough sketch and prepared observation Mahazar. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter statement stating that on the petitioners complaint, case has been registered in Crime No.1039 of 2007. The petitioner does not know the reason for fire. Anyhow, the third respondent took up the case for investigation and also visited the occurrence place, made a rough sketch and prepared observation Mahazar. At that time, the statements of one Kumar and Venu, who were witnesses to the fire were recorded. The statements of the petitioner and his wife were also recorded. In their statement, the house was fully burnt, household things were also burnt but they do not know the reason. The respondent has also enquired the following persons 1) Murugan 2) Suresh 3) Ramesh 4) Jayapandi, all belonging to the same locality. There statements also have been collected by the third respondent. 5. The above mentioned persons were playing in the ground nearby the occurrence place. In their opinion, only because of wind, fire spread to the complainant house from the neighbouring hut and burnt it. The fire service personnel came and put off the fire. The fire officers statement also was recorded. As per fire officers statement, complainants house and another hut belonging to Ashok Residency Hotel were burnt. The complainant made an allegation against one Raghu. After duly investigating the matter, it is found that on 09.06.2007 morning, he went to his office and returned at 10.30 p.m and thereafter he came to know about the incident. On the said complaint, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Maduravoyal also conducted enquiry and found that the allegation made by the complainant is false. After investigation, charge sheet was also served on the complainant by registered post. The third respondent submitted a final report before the Judicial Magistrate Court. Further the case is reported as "Further Action Dropped" on 10.07.2007. The third respondent has stated that he has conducted the investigation in a proper and fair manner in accordance with law and the final report was submitted. So, at this stage, the Transfer Original Petition is not maintainable. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents of the petitioner and arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court is of the view that further action has already been dropped in the said case by the third respondent. As such the Criminal Case is closed, and so Transfer Petition is not maintainable. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents of the petitioner and arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court is of the view that further action has already been dropped in the said case by the third respondent. As such the Criminal Case is closed, and so Transfer Petition is not maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, he is at liberty to file a private complaint. Hence, the above Criminal Original Petition has got to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.