Judgment :- 1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition with a prayer to withdraw the case in Crime No.261 of 2009 pending investigation on the file of the second respondent police and transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. 2. The petitioner is the elder sister and power agent of one Dr.N.Sabanayagam a non resident of Indian and now residing at New York, USA. The said Dr.M.Sabanayagam owns a large extent of properties in and around Chidambaram. In order to manage and dispose the properties he had appointed the petitioner as his power agent. One Senthilkumar is one of the brothers son of the petitioner and as such she had reposed confidence and fully trusted him and also engaged him for the development of properties to form a layout and plots. The said Senthilkumar with a fraudulent intention to make huge money and grab the entire properties which was managed by the petitioner, had prepared a false and forged document of power of attorney to sell the properties, comprised in Survey No.5, measuring 1.88 acres, Survey No.4/9 measuring 1.18 acres and Survey No.4/3 measuring 38 cents, totalling an extent of 3.44 acres by appointing him as a Power Agent of Dr.M.Sabanayagam and the said power of attorney deed was registered under document No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Chidambaram on 09.01.2008. 3. On the strength of the said forged deed Senthilkumar in collusion with one S.Kalaivani daughter of Dr.N.Subramanian had executed a sale deed in favour of the said Kalaivani and the same was registered under Document No.3585.2008 dated 11.08.2008 for a meger sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs. But the actual market value of the property is Rs.22,36,000/-. 4. The petitioner had informed her brother Dr.M.Sabanayagam over phone about the fraudulent activities of Senthilkumar and her brother had also written a letter to his Advocate Mr.T.S.Parthasarathi on 02.12.2008, requesting him to initiate criminal proceedings against Senthilkumar and Kalaivani. Thereafter the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the second respondent police on 09.04.2009 under Section 420, 465, 467 and 468 IPC. But even after the registration of the case the second respondent police had not taken effective steps to investigate the case. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Thereafter the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the second respondent police on 09.04.2009 under Section 420, 465, 467 and 468 IPC. But even after the registration of the case the second respondent police had not taken effective steps to investigate the case. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi, appearing for the learned counsels M/s.V.S.SivaSundaram and S.Vadivel Murugan who are on record for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments has submitted that policing the country is an important task and the Police Department is playing a predominant role to preserve law and order in a controlled manner. He has also submitted that the people of the country alone can reflect the law of the land and as such they act as a mirror to reflect the law. He has also added that to rectify the wrong which is committed by the wrong doers complaints are lodged with the concerned Police Department who is having jurisdiction over the local area in which the offence is committed. If the police is not immediately indulged in swift action to initiate proceedings against the persons at wrong then the public will be loosing faith upon the functioning of the Police Department and then the policing of the Country will become a mockery. 7. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that even after several requests were made by the petitioner the second respondent police, had not evinced any interest in getting on with the investigation and hence, she had to approach this Court by filing a petition Crl.O.P.No.18557 of 2009 seeking for a direction to transfer the investigation pending on the file of the second respondent to the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai. On hearing both sides this Court by its order dated 07.01.2010, had passed an order as follows; "a) The Superintendent of Police, the first respondent herein shall call the Inspector of Police, the second respondent herein and look into the case dairy and give proper instruction to expedite the investigation and he shall also supervise the investigation. b) The second respondent herein is directed to expedite investigation without any further loss of time." 8. b) The second respondent herein is directed to expedite investigation without any further loss of time." 8. The learned senior counsel in connection with the above direction of this Court would submit that even in spite of the above said directions given by this Court, the second respondent did not take even a single step in the investigation as well as filing the final report. The learned senior counsel has also canvassed that the petitioner had repeatedly made several request to the second respondent police to send the forged power of attorney created by the accused Senthilkumar for an opinion from the Forensic Science Department since it is a case of forgery. However, the investigation has not been conducted fairly, properly and effectively and till date the respondent police had not commenced the investigation and not even examined or interrogated any person in connection with the allegations against the accused in the above said complaint. Taking advantage of the lethargic attitude of the second respondent, the said Senthilkumar had proceeded to sell another property in Survey No.6 situated at Thiruvakkam Village by using the forged power of attorney. He has also submitted that the above said Senthilkumar was trying to alienate other properties belonging to Dr.M.Sabanayagam by using the forged documents and had also threatened the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and compromise the case with the help of the respondent police. Hence, the learned senior counsel has urged before this Court that the case in Crime No.261 of 2009 might be withdrawn from the file of the second respondent police and transfer the same to the file of Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. 9. In support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi has placed reliance upon the decision in State of West Bengal & ors. vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) CTC 84. In this case an issue as to whether the High Court, "in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "the CBI"), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short "the Special Police Act") to investigate a cognisible offence which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State without the consent of the State" was referred for the opinion of the Constitutional Bench." 10. While penning down the judgment on behalf of a larger bench headed by his Lordship Honble Mr. Justice K.G.Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India as he then was, Honble Mr. Justice D.K.Jain has observed as follows; "In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of Civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly." 11. On the other hand the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the second respondent had taken strenuous effort in conducting the investigation in a fair and impartial manner and that during the course of investigation a request was made to the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram in order to send the sample signature (Xerox of Power of Attorney) of Dr.M.Sabanayagam who is the real owner of the property to the hand writing expert at Forensic Sciences Department at Chennai. He has also submitted that the requisition made by the investigating officer was returned by the above said Judicial Magistrate with an endorsement to furnish the standard signature of Dr.M.Sabanayagam found place in the original Power of Attorney deed. 12. He has also added that in pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.01.2010 and made in Clr.O.P.No.18557 of 2009, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District vide his proceedings in C.No.K1/05933/2010 dated 03.03.2010 had directed the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station to conduct proper investigation. Again the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District vide C.No.K1/05933/2010 dated 05.05.2010 had also directed the investigating officer to speed up the investigation. He has also submitted that once again, the investigating officer had made a requisition to the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor requesting to send the sample signature of the said Dr.M.Sabanayagam and that the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate is still awaited. 13. He has also submitted that once again, the investigating officer had made a requisition to the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor requesting to send the sample signature of the said Dr.M.Sabanayagam and that the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate is still awaited. 13. He has also added that only after the receipt of the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, the second respondent police would be able to proceed further and that he has also made an assurance that the second respondent police will be completing the investigation in accordance with the law and hence, there is no necessity to transfer the investigation pertaining to the case in Crime No.261 of 2009 to the file of the Central Bureau of Investigation. 14. Based on the submissions of the learned public prosecutor, this Court was constrained to call for a report from the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram in respect of the alleged submission of the requisition for sending the sample signatures of Dr.M.Sabanayagam to Forensic Science Handwriting Expert, Chennai. In pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 22.11.2010, the Learned Judicial Magistrate has submitted a report dated 25.11.2010 in which he has stated that the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram, Town Police Station had not yet filed a final report and that no document was produced so far, before his Court for sending the sample signature to the handwriting expert. 15. From the report submitted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, dated 25.11.2010, it is clear that the second respondent police has not submitted any requisition to the above said Learned Judicial Magistrate, requesting to send the sample signature of Dr.M.Sabanayagam, to the Handwriting expert Forensic Science Department at Chennai. It is established on the basis of the report submitted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate that there is room to presume that the second respondent has supplied false informations to this Court, and hence, the conduct of the second respondent has to be reprimanded. When such being the case how a fair and impartial investigation could be expected from the hands of the second respondent? This is the prime question arise in the given circumstance. 16. When such being the case how a fair and impartial investigation could be expected from the hands of the second respondent? This is the prime question arise in the given circumstance. 16. The learned senior counsel has also urged before this Court that in the interest of justice, and to enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to get impartial investigation and fair trial, it is imperative on the part of this Court to withdraw the investigation of the case in Crime No.261 of 2009 from the file of the second respondent and transfer to the file of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. 17. In this connection it may be better to refer the observation made by the his Lordship Honble Mr. Justice D.K.Jain, who has drawn the judgment on behalf of a larger bench in the case in State of West Bengal & ors. vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) CTC 84. "We deem it necessary to emphasis that despite wide powers conferred by Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigation." 18. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigation." 18. Keeping in view of the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited decision, this Court is of considered view that through the investigation of the second respondent in the case in Crime No.261 of 2009, is not satisfactory, still this Court has not made up its mind to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 19. Having regard to the observations made above the case in Crime No.261 of 2009 which is pending investigation on the file of the second respondent is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the CBCID Police Department, Cuddalore. The Superintendent of Police, who is heading the CBCID Police Department is directed to keep strict surveillance on the conduct of investigation by the police officer who is actually taking up the case, and to act as a sentinel quivive, and see that the investigation is completed in a fair and impartial manner and consequently the final report is filed within the stipulated time of three months without any further loss of time. If any deviation is found it will be viewed seriously. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.