Judgment :- The petitioner is an accused in several cases within and outside the city of Chennai and alleged that the Police Authorities foisted several false cases for the purpose of detaining him under the Act 14 of Tamil Nadu Goonda 1982. A complaint was sent to the authorities by wife of the petitioner on 212. 2008 and by the petitioner on 212. 2008 through the prison authorities. Since the same has not been taken on file for investigation, the petitioner seeks for a direction to register the case and transfer the investigation of the case to CBI. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was enquired and arrested on 012. 2008 and the Assistant Commissioner of Police demanded for Rs.One lakh for settling the matter and the same has been refused. That because the petitioner has filed petition with allegations against Police officers with the aforesaid prayer, they registered several other cases and in the result, they have detained him on 21.02.207 under Goondas Act. The order of detention against the petitioner was set aside on 16.08.2007 by the Bench of High Court in H.P. No. 366 of 2007. After consideration of Sub-Urban Police Commissionarate, 11 other cases were, subsequently registered and the petitioner was detained, second time as a "Goonda" on 212. 2008 and his detention was quashed by orders passed by the Bench of High Court in H.P. No. 69 of 2009 on 20.01.2009. It is further submitted that six cases registered, are concocted by the Police after filing of the aforesaid petitions before the High Court. The petitioner, by filing petitions seeks for a direction for transfer of the investigation of those cases to CBI for further investigation. 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner has preferred Crl.O.P. Nos.18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962, seeking to quash FIRs, registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though several cases were pending against the petitioner, the said quash petitions have been filed against those 6 FIRs. Though it is claimed that the complaint of the petitioner dated 212. 2008 was enquired by the Dy. Commissioner of Police and even though prima facie allegation has been made out against the erring Police Officers, enquiry was not conducted in the manner known to law, since they are the subordinate police officers of the enquiry officer. Though it is claimed that the complaint of the petitioner dated 212. 2008 was enquired by the Dy. Commissioner of Police and even though prima facie allegation has been made out against the erring Police Officers, enquiry was not conducted in the manner known to law, since they are the subordinate police officers of the enquiry officer. It is further claimed that those erring police Officers looted and taken away the belongings of the petitioner worth Rs.1 crore in the form of seizure and the same was not deposited in the court. On perusal of the case records and documentary materials, it will go to show that the case has been falsely foisted on the petitioner. The family members of the petitioner were also ill-treated and several representations were made. The report submitted by Commissioner of Police is also biased, motivated and there is no iota of truths in it and made to protect his sub-ordinate Police Officers. Several case records were manipulated and that though some of the cases were transferred to CBCID for further investigation, the petitioner lost his hopes as to whether the investigation of the cases will be conducted in a fair and independent manner. Hence, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the FIRs or in the alternative transfer of those cases to CBI. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the alleged complaints dated 212. 208 and 212. 2008 are, in fact, not the complaints, but representations sent after detention of the petitioner to the detaining authorities to revoke the order of detention. Those representations were considered as per the procedure Contemplated under Detention law and a reply has also been sent. All the materials were produced before the advisory board and after receiving opinion from the board, the detention was confirmed. Only on certain technical grounds, the order of detention passed by the Government was quashed. Therefore the complaint, as claimed by the petitioner, is not a complaint in the eye of law to register a case and investigate and further transfer to CBI. However, submits that complaints dated 212. 2008 and 212. Only on certain technical grounds, the order of detention passed by the Government was quashed. Therefore the complaint, as claimed by the petitioner, is not a complaint in the eye of law to register a case and investigate and further transfer to CBI. However, submits that complaints dated 212. 2008 and 212. 2008 were independently entrusted with a high ranking officer namely Deputy Commissioner of Police and all the allegations made against the Police officers including the Assistant Commissioner of Police were thoroughly enquired and a report has been submitted to the effect that those allegations were made against the Police Officers only to create a defence and to escape from the crime committed by the accused. Since allegations were made against the Police Officers by the wife of the petitioner, at the initiation of the Commissioner of Police, Sub-Urban Commissionarate, Chennai, most of the cases pending against the petitioner including the cases for which petitions filed were transferred to CBCID for further investigation, that out of 6 cases in which quash petitions were filed, three Crl.O.P.Nos. 18639, 18641 and 18702 of 2009 were already transferred to CBCID and assured that other cases pending against the petitioner will also be transferred to CBCID. Presently, 41 cases are pending against the petitioner and the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the cases and for quashing of FIRs does not arise at all. 5. By filing a petition for cancellation of bail in one of the cases in Crl.O.P.No.5608 of 2009, the defacto complainant submits that the bail was granted on a flimsy ground without considering the habitual and grave nature of the offences committed, several cases were registered against the petitioner and by adopting the similar modus operandi, the petitioner has committed 41 cases by misusing the liberty, granted by the courts. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner should not be allowed to enjoy the benefit, granted by an order of the court and the bail granted may be canceled. 6. Heard the submissions made by both the parties and perused the materials available on record. .7. Admittedly, 41 cases are pending against the petitioner. Some of the cases already registered, were transferred and pending investigation by CBCID. The petitioner was detained twice as a Goonda by the Government. 6. Heard the submissions made by both the parties and perused the materials available on record. .7. Admittedly, 41 cases are pending against the petitioner. Some of the cases already registered, were transferred and pending investigation by CBCID. The petitioner was detained twice as a Goonda by the Government. The petitioner seeks to quash the FIRs in six cases by preferring quash petitions mainly by attributing malafide reasons against the Police Officers. On perusal of those FIRs, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie materials are available to constitute cognizable offences. The investigating agency must be allowed to continue to collect the materials and come to a conclusion in one way or other before filing of the final report. Investigation of the case cannot be quashed in the midway on the ground of malafide attributed against the investigating Officer. Initially, FIR has been registered and investigation of the case has been taken by the local jurisdiction Police Officers. Subsequently, in view of the allegation against some Police Officers, the cases were transferred to some other investigating agency namely CBCID. The malafide grounds alleged against those original investigating officers is not attributed to the new investigating officers. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that CBCID also supervised by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Government cannot be taken as a valid ground for transfer of the case to CBI. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the allegation made against those Police Officers originally investigated, those cases will also be transferred to CBCID. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit to pass order in Crl.O.P. No. 3880 of 2009 to register the case, since enquiry has been conducted and report has been submitted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, transfer of investigation to CBI also does not arise. Therefore, Crl.O.P.No. 3880 of 2009 is dismissed for the reasons above mentioned and the quash petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos. 18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962, preferred by the petitioner to quash FIRs are also dismissed. 8. Thepetition for cancellation of bail, filed by one of the defacto complainants was preferred at a belated stage, since order for grant of bail has been passed on 212. 2008. 18639, 18641, 18702, 18703, 18954 and 18962, preferred by the petitioner to quash FIRs are also dismissed. 8. Thepetition for cancellation of bail, filed by one of the defacto complainants was preferred at a belated stage, since order for grant of bail has been passed on 212. 2008. Moreover, it is reported that investigation of the case has been completed, final report has been submitted and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the case. Under such circumstances, the relief granted to the petitioner pending investigation need not be set aside. Therefore, Crl.O.P.No. 5608 is dismissed. 9. Accordingly, by common order the Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.