Judgment :- The petitioner, who is the Pontiff of the Udasin Bavaji Mutt has filed these four petitions and seeks transfer of investigation in the concerned cases from the second respondent to either the third or fourth respondent. The four cases in Crime Nos. 40, 72, 73 of 2009 and 5 of 2010 came to be preferred by the petitioner and inform that the mutt is in possession of the properties over 100 Crores. The petitioner informs that he can understand English and Tamil but can neither write or read the same and that he is acquainted only with Hindi. Taking advantage thereof and towards grabbing Mutt property, several persons cheated the petitioner and caused loss to the mutt. In all the complaints, one K. Selvaraj, S/o. Kothandapani, who was working as the Assistant of the petitioner prominently figures. 2. In Crime No. 40 of 2009, the allegation is that under the guise of obtaining a lease deed in favour of one Jhansi Rani, a Power of Attorney was obtained from the petitioner and sale of mutt property had been effected on the strength thereof. Offences under Sections 120(B), 460, 465, 467, 468, 471, 475 and 420 IPC have been alleged against the said K. Selvaraj and others. 3. In Crime No. 72 of 2009, the allegation is that as against the original deed of lease executed by him in favour of one Ekambaram on 23.12.2002 in registered document No. 1035 of 2003, a representation was made to him that the lessee is ready to offer higher yearly lease rent and on the same, he was led to execute a rectification agreement on 21.01.2004 registered as document No. 155 of 2004. Subsequently, he learnt that such document reflected alteration of lease period to 99 years in stead of 20 years as agreed upon and shown in the lease deed dated 23.12.2002. Though offences under Sections 406, 468, 471 and 420 IPC were made out, no action was taken by the first and second respondents. Pursuant to a direction from this Honble Court in Crl.O.P. No. 25450 of 2009 by order dated 24.11.2009, a case was registered in Crime No. 72 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against the said K. Selvaraj and Ekambaram. Though FIR has been registered, no further action has been taken pursuant thereto. 4. Pursuant to a direction from this Honble Court in Crl.O.P. No. 25450 of 2009 by order dated 24.11.2009, a case was registered in Crime No. 72 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against the said K. Selvaraj and Ekambaram. Though FIR has been registered, no further action has been taken pursuant thereto. 4. In Crime No. 73 of 2009, the allegation is that the petitioner came to know of an alleged Power of Attorney, executed by him towards sale of property of the mutt to the intended purchaser. The petitioner informs that his signature has been obtained earlier for the purpose of executing a lease deed dated 01.08.2007 in favour of Peoples Progressive Trust and using his signature obtained at such instance, a forged Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2007 had been created by the said K. Selvaraj and one Vasudevan. The petitioner had executed a deed of cancellation of Power of Attorney on 18.08.2009. On complaint dated 06.10.2009, no action was taken and again, the petitioner moved this Court by way of Crl.O.P. No. 25925 of 2009 and the same was allowed under orders dated 26.11.2009. A case in Crime No. 73 of 2009 was registered after a delay of one month from the date of issuance of direction of this Court on 22.12.2009 thereby affording accused persons adequate time to tamper with the material evidence. 5. In Crime No. 5 of 2010, the allegation is that one other lease deed executed by him on 14.06.2006 in a registered document No. 2739 of 2006 was tampered with to the effect that the original lease of 20 years was shown as for 99 years. Again, as there was no action upon the complaint, the petitioner had moved this Honble Court in Crl.O.P. No. 24983 of 2009. Pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2009, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 5 of 2010. The same was registered on 03.02.2010 i.e. after a lapse of three months from the date of direction of this Court. 6. The petitioner now seeks transfer of investigation in all the above cases informing that the acts of accused have adversely affected the mutt property and resulted in severe loss to the mutt. The same was registered on 03.02.2010 i.e. after a lapse of three months from the date of direction of this Court. 6. The petitioner now seeks transfer of investigation in all the above cases informing that the acts of accused have adversely affected the mutt property and resulted in severe loss to the mutt. The petitioner states that without acquiring relevant materials in respect of forged documents either from the Office of the Sub-Registrar or without examining persons, who could shed light on the matter, the second respondent was merely pressurising him to withdraw the cases against the accused. The second respondent also impressed upon the petitioners that the matters were in the nature of civil disputes. The petitioner states that there is no objective investigation and that the second respondent is acting in such manner as would shield the accused. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of investigation in the above cases. 7. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also perused the status report submitted on behalf of the second respondent. 8. A reading of the status report does not instil confidence in the investigating agency. This Court feels it appropriate to direct transfer of the investigation. Accordingly, the investigation of the cases shall be transferred to the third respondent, who shall do the needful in respect of fair and proper investigation in the matter.