Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioner in all these Writ Petitions was employed as Fertilizers Assistant -cum-Clerk in Chakramallur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. A Criminal case was registered in FIR No.2 of 2007 against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vellore with CCIW Police. Thereafter pursuant to the FIR No.2 of 2007 in which the petitioners name finds a place at Serial No.18, investigation was conducted by the first respondent, Inspector of Police, CCIW, Vellore. A charge sheet has been laid before the Judicial Magistrate II, Vellore in C.C.Nos.439 of 2007, and 27,28,31,29,30. The petitioner has come forward with these Writ Petitions to challenge the charge sheets on the ground that there is no case made out in respect of the petitioner. 3. Mr.S.Venkataraman learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the matter was admitted on 07.10.2009 and after notice the third respondent society has filed a counter affidavit dated 17.12.2009 and sought for earlier disposal of the Writ Petitions. In view of the inter connectivity among all the Writ Petitions, the matters were heard together and a common order is passed. 4. It is the stand of the third respondent society that serious irregularities were committed by various persons including the Writ Petitioner and the enquiry was ordered under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The enquiry report held that the petitioner had also committed misappropriation by granting fictions loans. It was also stated that the CCIW police has conducted full investigation and filed a final report in which the complicity of the petitioner was also disclosed. The petitioner instead of moving the Criminal Court for relief of discharge or by seeking for quashing of the charge sheet, has filed the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. To counter the said objection Mr. S. Venkataraman learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the Judgment of the Supreme Court in "M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others" reported in "JT 1997 (8) S.C.705". Reference was made to the passages found in paragraphs 28 and 29 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of Course. Special Judicial Magistrate and others" reported in "JT 1997 (8) S.C.705". Reference was made to the passages found in paragraphs 28 and 29 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of Course. No doubt an accused can be discharged at any stage of the trial, if the charges are groundless. But the right of the accused to move a petition either under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution is always available. There is no quarrel with the said principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 6. In the present case the allegation of the petitioner was that he was a Fertilizers Assistant cum Clerk and he was in charge of the distribution of loans. A perusal of all the final reports clearly shows that the charges are laid not only in terms of Sections 408,467,468,471,477(A), but also they were to be read with section 120(B) Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the complaint lodged by the Deputy Registrar the name of the petitioner do not find a place and there was no specific complainant against him. But as already noted the First Information Report contains the name of the petitioner as Sl.No.18. The Criminal case cannot be thrown out at the stage of the First Information Report. As rightly pointed out by the 3rd respondent society, the stage of the First Information Report had already crossed and final reports have been filed, even against the petitioner. Even if no overt Act has been made against the petitioner the charge under Section 120(B) can also stand by itself. Already in identical circumstances in W.P.No.18506 of 2009 in S.G.Natarajan Vs. State and others, this Court by an order dated 29.12.2009 dismissed the Writ Petition. In that Writ Petition in paragraph 6 the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Sakri Vasu Vs. State of Utra Pradesh and others" reported in (2008) 1 SCC 440 has been referred to. 7. It is necessary to refer to the passages found in paragraphs 28,29 which are as follows. "28. In that Writ Petition in paragraph 6 the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Sakri Vasu Vs. State of Utra Pradesh and others" reported in (2008) 1 SCC 440 has been referred to. 7. It is necessary to refer to the passages found in paragraphs 28,29 which are as follows. "28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a Writ Petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. 29. In Union of India v. Prakash P.Hinduja (SCC vide para 13) it has been observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the Police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under section 156(3) CrPC is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer in charge of the police station concerned, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate)." 8. At this stage of the trial this Court is not inclined to render any specific finding while may affect the right of the petitioner in the trial. Suffice to state there are no grounds to interfere with the charge sheets by this Court. The Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed. All the Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs.