ORDER Since both the writ petitions arise from a common F.I.R. and common questions of law and fact have been raised therein, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The prayers in both the writ petitions are as follows:– (a) To quash the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna , by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.346 of 2008 dated 8.11.2008 registered under sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. (b) To quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid first information report as the same appears to be vexatious, vindictive and illegal. (c) To declare the investigation of the case and carrying out the investigation by the local police to be without jurisdiction pursuant to the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “CVC Act”) as the local police had no jurisdiction to carry out the investigation of any case of fraud related to misappropriation of amount in which the amount involved is more than one crore. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Sandip Gautam, a Cluster Head of H.D.F.C.Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna gave a written report dated 8th November 2008 to the Officer-in-charge, Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna alleging that his Patna Main Branch has a current A/c No. 0380002100060239 with Punjab National Bank at Exhibition Road, Patna for last several years as a Branch of Punjab National Bank which is linked to Current Chest. Due to safety reasons, the cash of his Bank was deposited in Punjab National Bank through authorized agency dealing with secured cash remittance, viz M/s Securitrans India Pvt. Ltd. On 19th September 2008, his Branch handed over cash amounting to Rs.4,70,00,000/- (Rupees four crore seventy lacs) through the authorized representatives of M/s Securitrans India Pvt. Ltd. Out of the said amount of Rs.4,70,00,000/-, only a sum of Rs.1.7 crores was credited in his Bank’s Current Account with the Punjab National Bank on different dates from 20th September 2008 to 3rd October 2008 and that on observing the reconciliation account it was found that a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (three crores) had not been credited to his Bank Account by the Punjab National Bank Officials. It was further alleged that on 21st October 2008, an amount of Rs.4,90,00,000/- (Rupees four crore, ninety lacs) was deposited in the Punjab National Bank through their authorized representative M/s Securitrans India Pvt. Ltd. and Sri K.P. Singh, Branch Manager confirmed that the amount was deposited in his Bank. The further allegation is that the Branch Manager and the Head Cashier of the Punjab National Bank had not provided credit of total amount of Rs.7.9 crores of his Bank and the money had been fraudulently misappropriated. The informant stated in his written report that his Bank wrote to Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office at Patna vide its letter dated 24th October 2008 and again on 3rd November 2008 seeking their intervention but, they failed to act and to set the Account right and credit his aforesaid current Account with the amount deposited with them. It has further been alleged that the concerned Officials of the Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office seemed to be protecting the illegal activities of their Branch Officials and they were busy in destroying the records by tampering the Bank records and thus they were involved in criminal conspiracy for the same. The informant stated that his Bank’s authorized representative M/s Securitrans India Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the deposit of said amount of Rs.7.9 crores with the Punjab National Bank. The informant stated that the amount of Rs.7.9 crore had been fraudulently misappropriated by Sri R.K.Narayan, Head Cashier (who was absconding as per information), Sri P.N.Sikdar, Chief Manager (then Branch Manager on 19th September 2008) and Sri Ashish Sinha, Manager (then Branch Manager on 21st October 2008) and other officials of the Punjab National Bank who committed criminal breach of trust in criminal conspiracy with others and cheated him. The informant also expressed his apprehension that Sri Shailesh Ranjan Singh, Chief Manager, who was then Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna Branch with other officials of the Bank was indulging in destroying and fabricating the records of the Branch, including CCTV footage of the transactions and that he had not provided the CCTV Footage to his Bank in spite of repeated requests. 3. 3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No. 346 of 2008 dated 8th November 2008 under Sections 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the four named accused, namely, the said P.K.Sikdar, Ashish Sinha, Shailesh Ranjan Singh and R.K.Narayan as well as others unknown. 4. On the basis of the first information report, Sub Inspector of Police, namely, Sri Narayan Singh of Gandhi Maidan Police Station took up the investigation of the case. It is to be noted here that in course of investigation earlier one Krishna Kumar, Secretary, Patna Circle, Patna of Punjab National Bank, Officer’s Association had filed a writ petition vide Cr.W.J.C. No.247 of 2009 in this court raising the issue that local police had no authority to investigate the case and only the Central Bureau of Investigation had the jurisdiction in the matter to investigate and thus, prayer was made to hand over the investigation of the case to an independent professional agency like Central Bureau of Investigation so that member officers of the association may be protected from police atrocities. 5. A Bench of this court after hearing the parties by order dated 8.10.2010 dismissed the said writ petition holding therein that the writ petitioner had no locus standi in the matter as the association was not made an accused in the case. The petitioners, in the present two writ petitions, have thereafter moved this court for the relief as quoted above. 6. Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that pursuant to Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (CVC Act, 2003, for short), the police has no jurisdiction to investigate the case. In support of his argument reliance has been placed on Office Order No. 45/7/04 dated 5th July, 2004 and Office Order No.14/3/05 dated 30.3.2005 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Directors of all Public Sector Banks and others. For the sake of convenience, the Office Orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are being reproduced herein which reads as under:– No. 003/VGL/1 (Part) Government of India Central Vigilance Commission ****** Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110 023 Dated the 5th July, 2004 Office Order No. 45/7/04 To The Chairman-cum-Managing Directors of all Public Sector Banks. Subject: Reporting of frauds perpetrated by Bank employees to local police/CBI. Sir, According to the existing instructions, cases of fraud of the value of Rs.25 lakhs and above are entrusted by the Banks to the CBI for investigation. Other cases where amounts involved appear to be less than Rs.25 lakhs are entrusted to the local police. At various forums, representatives of banks have suggested that the limit of Rs.25 lakhs may be raised to Rs.1 crore so that the banks have the option of going to the local police especially in cases where no bank official is suspected of involvement. 2. The Commission, in consultation with Reserve Bank, has decided to raise the existing limit of Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore for referring bank fraud cases to the CBI. This would allow Banks to refer the fraud cases below Rs. 1 crore to the local police. However, reference of such cases to the CBI would be necessary only if a Bank official is suspected to be involved; otherwise a reference to the local police will suffice. 3. The Banking Securities & Fraud Cell (BS&FC) at Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Kolkata would handle information/complaints of the amount of alleged bank frauds in excess of Rs. 5 crores. If the amount of the alleged fraud ranges between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 5 crores, the information would be handled/investigated by the branch of CBI having territorial jurisdiction over the area. 4. The above guidelines may be followed strictly while handling the alleged bank fraud cases. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Mange Lal) Deputy Secretary No. 003/VGL/1 (Part) Government of India Central Vigilance Commission ****** Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110 023 Dated the 30th March, 2005 Office Order No. 14/3/05 To, (i) The Chairman-Cum-Managing Directors of all Public Sector Banks. (ii) The Chief Vigilance Officers of PSBs/CBI/ABBCFF Sub:Reporting of frauds perpetrated by bank employees and others to local police/CBI. Sir/Madam, Reference is invited to Office Order No. 45/7/04 dated 5th July, 2004 on the above subject. This order raised the limit of cases to be necessarily referred to CBI from Rs. 25 lakh to Rs. 1 crore. Some Banks have been enquiring whether only such frauds in which prima facie involvement of bank employees is evident are to be referred to the CBI or all cases of bank frauds involving Rs. 1 crore and above are to be referred. 25 lakh to Rs. 1 crore. Some Banks have been enquiring whether only such frauds in which prima facie involvement of bank employees is evident are to be referred to the CBI or all cases of bank frauds involving Rs. 1 crore and above are to be referred. 2. In this regard, it is clarified that CBI has two separate divisions i.e. Anti-Corruption Division and Economic Offences Division. If a bank fraud case has prima facie involvement of bank employees, the cases need to be referred to Anti-Corruption Branches and if the case does not have prima facie involvement of bank officials, it can be referred to EOW (Economic Offences Wing) of the CBI. For frauds involving more than Rs. 5 crores, the cases are to be referred to Banking Security and Fraud Cell, which is specialized cell of the Economic Offences Wing of the CBI for major bank fraud cases. 3. It is further clarified that cases which need to be referred to CBI/BS&FC units of CBI and Police are as follows:- I. Cases to be referred to CBI (a) Cases of Rs. 1 crore and upto Rs. 5 crore –Where staff involvement is prima facie evident – CBI (Anti Corruption evident Branch) – Where staff involvement is prima facie not evident – CBI (EOW) Branch (b) All cases of Rs.5 crore and above – BS&FC units of CBI. II. Cases to be referred to local police Cases below Rs. 1 crore –Local Police. 4. In addition to the above mandatory references, CVO in consultation with CMD may refer a case involving less than Rs. 1 crore or a case which cannot be classified on monetary limits, to the CBI, if, in the opinion of the CVO, the case is of serious nature and/or has an inter-state or International ramification. 5. Relevant provision of para 6.3 of the Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks would stand amended to that extent. Yours faithfully, (Anjana Dube) Deputy Secretary. 7. Learned senior counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid two office orders neither local police has jurisdiction to investigate the case nor has authority to compel the petitioners to face agony of the criminal trial. It has also been argued that the petitioners are innocent. They are not named in the first information report. The police has maliciously implicated them in course of investigation. It has also been argued that the petitioners are innocent. They are not named in the first information report. The police has maliciously implicated them in course of investigation. They are not attached to the Branch in which the alleged fraud took place. They were posted at the Zonal Office at the relevant time and thus there was no occasion for them to be involved in any manner with the alleged offence. Advancing his argument, learned senior counsel further argues that the offence alleged would come within the definition of section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, thus, the matter has to be mandatorily investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He submits that the Sub Inspector of Police, who is investigating the case, is legally not competent to investigate such cases. According to him, the investigation is being carried out in a perfunctory manner and the investigating agency is doing nothing except implicating innocent persons. He submits that the whole case against the petitioners is based on hypothetical presumption and the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners, is an abuse of process of court. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that C.V.C. Act, 2003 and the circulars/office orders relied upon by the petitioners are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The offence alleged in the present case is not of obtaining illegal gratification for illegal gain of 3rd party, rather the same is out and out a case of cheating and forgery for not depositing the amount in Punjab National Bank after receiving it from HDFC Bank. He submits that the accused persons were found involved in destroying and fabricating the evidence including CCTV footage of the transaction and, therefore, the present case is not a case which may be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation or Central Vigilance Commission, rather the local police is having jurisdiction to lodge and investigate the case and bring it to its logical end and also to seek warrant of arrest and processes against the accused persons. According to him, involvement of the petitioners was found in course of investigation and supervision of the case which has been conducted by the Senior Superintendent of police, Patna. 9. According to him, involvement of the petitioners was found in course of investigation and supervision of the case which has been conducted by the Senior Superintendent of police, Patna. 9. Mr.Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I., submits that the C.B.I. is a proforma-respondent. He submits that, in the present case, fraud has not been committed in a public sector bank. As a matter of fact, the amount, in question, belonged to H.D.F.C. Bank which is a private Ltd. bank and, thus, the circulars issued by the Central Vigilance Commission relied upon by the petitioners would not be applicable in the present case. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the informant, who has been impleaded as respondent no.11 in the present writ petitions, submits that a huge amount to the tune of rupees seven crores ninety lakhs has been defalcated in the present case. The money belonged to the HDFC Bank. The moment the offence came to light, the informant took steps and instituted the first information report with the local police having competent jurisdiction. Now, the police is conducting its investigation. According to him, investigation in a cognizable case is the exclusive jurisdiction of the police. It is for the police to find out, in course of investigation, as to who the offenders are. If the police has collected incriminating materials against the petitioners in course of investigation, there is no fetter on its powers to apprehend them and/or to seek warrant and processes from the court of competent jurisdiction against them in accordance with law. 11. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that, as a matter of fact, the petitioners had moved for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, patna, which has already been rejected. The petitioners, thereafter, moved before this court for grant of anticipatory bail but their applications for anticipatory bail have also been rejected by this court. The petitioners, thereafter, moved for grant of anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even the Apex Court has refused to grant them anticipatory bail. The SLPs in this regard were dismissed on 2.9.2011. The petitioners have chosen not to appear before the court concerned till date in spite of the fact that their applications for grant of anticipatory bail have been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court much back in September, 2011 itself. Even the Apex Court has refused to grant them anticipatory bail. The SLPs in this regard were dismissed on 2.9.2011. The petitioners have chosen not to appear before the court concerned till date in spite of the fact that their applications for grant of anticipatory bail have been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court much back in September, 2011 itself. He, thus, submits that there is no merit in the present writ petition and some how or the other the petitioners want to derail the investigation of the case. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that the petitioners, as a matter of fact, want fair and impartial investigation. Since the local police is not investigating the matter properly, the petitioners have approached this court much before their applications for grant of anticipatory bail were rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He, thus, submits that, as a matter fact, the petitioners are ventilating their grievance before the court and they are not evading arrest. 13. Having heard the parties, I am of the view that the investigation in a criminal case normally takes place in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”). 14. CVC as an integrity institution was set up by the Government of India in 1964. It was not a statutory body at that time. The sole purpose behind setting up of the CVC pursuant to the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee was to improve the vigilance administration of the country. In September, 1997 the Government of India established the Independent Review Committee. In December, 1997 the Review Committee suggested that the CVC be given a statutory status. It also recommended that the CVC shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of Central Bureau of Investigation. On 18.12.1997, in Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India since reported in (1998)1 SCC 226 the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered that the CVC be given a statutory status as recommended by the Independent Review Committee. The judgment in Vineet Narain case (supra) was followed by the 1999 Ordinance which conferred statutory status on the CVC. The said 1999 Ordinance was ultimately replaced by the enactment the CVC Act, 2003. The judgment in Vineet Narain case (supra) was followed by the 1999 Ordinance which conferred statutory status on the CVC. The said 1999 Ordinance was ultimately replaced by the enactment the CVC Act, 2003. The preamble and section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 8(1)(c), 8(1(d) and 8(1)(e) of that act reads as under:– Preamble “An Act to provide for the Constitution of a Central Vigilance Commission to inquire or cause inquiries to be conducted into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 by certain categories of Public Servants of the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 8. 8. Functions and powers of Central Vigilance Commission.–(1) The functions and powers of the Commission shall be to – (a) exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) or an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial; (b) give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946 (25 of 1946) : Provided that while exercising the powers of superintendence under clause(a) or giving directions under this clause, the commission shall not exercise powers in such a manner so as to require the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner; (c) inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made on a reference made by the Central Government wherein it is alleged that a public servant being an employee of the Central Government or a corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government company, society and any local authority owned or controlled by that Government has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) or an offence with which public servant may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial; (d) Inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-section (2) wherein it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) and an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial; (e) review the progress of investigations conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) or the public servant may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.” 15. The preamble of the CVC Act, 2003 and the provisions of Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) 8(1)(c), 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the C.V.C. Act, 2003 make it clear that the Central Vigilance Commission is required to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special police establishment in matters relating to investigation of the offence allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or the offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section(2) of Section 8 of CVC Act, 2003 may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the same trial and give direction to the Delhi Special Police establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under Section 4 (i) of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 16. In the present case as would appear from the first information report, the offence alleged is not under the Prevention of Corruption Act. If the offence is not under the Prevention of Corruption, Act, there is no question that the matter should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 17. The case, in question, has been instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The reporting Officer, in the present case, is an Officer of the HDFC Bank which is a Private Limited Bank. The money defalcated belongs to a Private Limited Bank. The office orders relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the Private Limited Banks. The case relates to cheating or forgery for not depositing the amount in the account of HDFC Bank. The Supervising Officer, who is Senior Superintendent of Police, has found involvement of the petitioners in destroying and fabricating the evidences in CCTV footage on transaction. Since the investigation is not being conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and the offence alleged is not under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the circulars relied upon by the petitioners in support of their arguments that the matter is mandatorily required to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation merits no consideration. 18. On receipt of information relating to a cognizable offence the police has no option but to institute a first information report and proceed with the investigation. In case of a cognizable offence, the police may hold an investigation irrespective of any order of the Court. 18. On receipt of information relating to a cognizable offence the police has no option but to institute a first information report and proceed with the investigation. In case of a cognizable offence, the police may hold an investigation irrespective of any order of the Court. The police powers to investigate the case are limited to those which the criminal court has power to inquire into or to hold trial under Chapter XIII of the Cr.P.C. The territorial jurisdiction of a police station is in conformity with the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance or to try the offence. There is no dispute to the fact that in the present case Gandhi Maidan Police Station has territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case as the place of occurrence falls within its territorial jurisdiction. 19. The prayer of the petitioners is fit to be rejected for another reason too. By now, it is well settled that any irregularity or even any illegality during investigation ought not be taken as a ground to reject the prosecution case. The impunity against procedural irregularity regarding investigation by a designated police officer includes absence of jurisdiction in respect of investigation into a cognizable offence. Any sort of irregularity or illegality in conduct of investigation by any police officer with respect to empowerment under sub section (1) of section 156 Cr.P.C. including territorial jurisdiction has been taken care of by sub section (2) of section 156 of the Cr.P.C. In case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another) since reported in (1999)8 SCC 728 in paragraph-15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the High Court by which the first information report was quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction has held as under: 5. “…………………………… That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate. The High Court has completely overlooked the said embargo when it entertained the petition of Respondent 2 on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.” 20. The power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its authoritative pronouncement in State of Bihar and Another Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Others since reported in (1980)1 SCC 554 . In paragraph nos. The power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its authoritative pronouncement in State of Bihar and Another Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Others since reported in (1980)1 SCC 554 . In paragraph nos. 25 and 26 it has been held as follows:– “25.There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offences being taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate. This had been recognized way back in King Emperor Vs. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate. This had been recognized way back in King Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (1944 LR 71 IA 203, 213 : AIR 1945 PC 18), where the Privy Council observed as under: In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court’s functions begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then. 26. This view of the Judicial Committee clearly demarcates the functions of the executive and the judiciary in the field of detection of crime and its subsequent trial and it would appear that the power of police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated in several decisions that the police has the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence and the statutory power of the police cannot be interfered with by the court. While saying so, I am mindful of the fact that the High Court in exercise its power under section 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue proper direction at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that power of investigation has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide. While saying so, I am mindful of the fact that the High Court in exercise its power under section 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue proper direction at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that power of investigation has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide. Such power is to be exercised by this court in the rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance of the provisions enshrined under Chapter XIII of the Cr.P.C. is made out. In the present case there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the police has abused its power while investigating the case. 22. The law is clear on this point that neither the accused persons nor the informant of a case has a right to choose the investigating agency by which a particular offence be investigated. The petitioners, in the present case, cannot dictate that the investigation of the case must be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and not by the local police. There is no such provision either under the CVC Act, 2003 or under the Cr.P.C. which oust the jurisdiction of the local police to investigate the case. Under the circumstances, I find that the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners to quash the criminal proceeding against them in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.346 of 2008 cannot be allowed. 23. So far as other arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners by which it has been pleaded that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and there is no material against them on the basis of which they could have been made accused are concerned, in my view, these are matters of fact. At this stage, in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India this court would not look into the merit of the allegations. The plausible defence of the petitioners can be looked into by the investigating agency in course of investigation and by a court of competent jurisdiction before whom the police would submit its report under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. after conclusion of investigation. The credibility or otherwise of the defence version cannot be assessed at this stage by this court. 24. The credibility or otherwise of the defence version cannot be assessed at this stage by this court. 24. So far as the question of quashing the warrant of arrest issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is concerned, the same was issued on 5.2.2009. The prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail has been refused upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court in September, 2011 itself. The petitioners have yet not appeared either before the investigating agency or before the court concerned. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined even to accede to this prayer of the petitioners. 25. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed.