Judgment : 1. The first petition namely Crl.OP No. 1536 of 2014 has been filed by an Association viz., Faculty Welfare Association, National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Chennai “600 013. The second Petition being Crl.OP No. 1537 of 2014 has been filed by an individual. In both the petitions, the petitioners have levelled various charges of corruption and involvement of four persons mentioned therein in their complaint dated 13.12.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively. According to the petitioners, the respondents did not swiftly taken any action on the basis of the complaints given by them. The respondent did not also register any complaint on the basis of such complaints given and therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents is contrary to the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in (Lalita Kumari vs. Government of UP and others) 2013 (6) CTC 353 @ 405. 2. The petitioner Association would contend that the inaction on the part respondent/CBI in taking action on the basis of the complaint received by them is in violation of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the constitution decision referred to above. It is further stated that the association had narrated various events in the complaint relating to embezzlement of money by malpractice in civil works; loot of funds from projects and self-financing college programmes; fradulent transfer of project funds, embezzling TA/DA of participants, misuse of funds meant for retirement benefits, misdirecting the pay of staff for wrongful gain and misuse, bribery in faculty recruitment, conspiracy to cover up corruption, sexual misconduct with trainee staff etc., Therefore, according to the petitioner “Association, even though such a cognisable offence is made out, the respondent/CBI did not take any action and therefore the present petition has been filed. 3. As far as Crl.OP No. 1537 of 2014 is concerned, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.144 of 2012 came to be registered by the State Police. In the complaint, it was alleged that approval has been granted by National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai to ineligible engineering colleges etc., In other words, the complaint mainly pertains to large scale corruption in National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research. In the complaint, it was alleged that approval has been granted by National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai to ineligible engineering colleges etc., In other words, the complaint mainly pertains to large scale corruption in National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research. According to the petitioner, the faculty in the institute are afraid of challenging their bosses by giving complaint to the respondent. It is further contended that already a case has been registered in Crime No.144 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent but it has not been properly investigated. Further, the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research is a Central Government Organisation, therefore, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate the case in Crime No.144 of 2012. The petitioner therefore seeks for investigation of the case by the respondent/CBI by invoking Section 154 of Cr.P.C. In the light of the Constitution Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to above. 4. As regards the complaint given by the association as well as the individual petitioner, it is verbitam and ditto of the allegations raised against the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai. 5. The sole respondent in Crl.OP No. 1536 of 2014 as well as the first respondent in Crl.OP No. 1537 of 2014 have filed their counter affidavit as well as the status report. The second respondent/CBI also filed a counter. In the counter, the respondent/CBI would contend that the allegations narrated in the complaint are vague and generic in nature. The complaint did not disclose a specific overt act against any one. There is no indication of the period during which the offence said to have been committed. There are also vague references to the period during which the offence said to have been committed with regard to embezzlement of money by malpractice in civil works. There are no specific instances mentioned in the complaint supported by material evidences. There were sweeping references of the name of the Director given in the complaint. Therefore, the respondent/CBI, in tune with the guidelines laid down in the CBI manual and that of the Central Givilance Commission, which stipulates that complaints containing vague or sweeping allegations need not be pursued with, has not taken any action thereof. There were sweeping references of the name of the Director given in the complaint. Therefore, the respondent/CBI, in tune with the guidelines laid down in the CBI manual and that of the Central Givilance Commission, which stipulates that complaints containing vague or sweeping allegations need not be pursued with, has not taken any action thereof. In any event, the respondent/CBI did not disobey the directions issued by the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in para No.82 of the said judgment, it was observed that “in view of the specific provisions in the code, the powers of the CBI under the DSPE Act cannot be equated with the powers of the regular State police under the code.” Of course, the respondent/CBI has filed identical counter statement in both the cases. 6. The first respondent in Crl.OP No. 1537 of 2014 has filed a status report in so far as the complaint given by the petitioner against one Janarthanan, visiting faculty of the institute alleging that the funds allotted to the project have been misappropriated by him to the tune of Rs.10,85,000/-. It is also stated that on the basis of such complaint, a case in Crime No. 144 of 2012 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120 (b), 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC on 01.04.2012 and investigation is pending. The investigation reveals that the accused is only a visiting faculty and has no right to handle huge money awarded by the management for conducting the courses. Therefore, the management was asked to furnish the documents to substantiate the allegations that huge amount was handed over to the accused for conducting the course. However, till date, the management did not furnish the documents sought for. Therefore, only after production of documents by the management, further investigation will be taken up in this case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had promptly brought to the notice of the respondents regarding the mismanagement and misappropriation of funds in the Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai and it is for the respondents to proceed with the investigation in tune with the constitution decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had promptly brought to the notice of the respondents regarding the mismanagement and misappropriation of funds in the Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai and it is for the respondents to proceed with the investigation in tune with the constitution decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the association has wrongly given the complaint to the first respondent, who has no jurisdiction to conduct any investigation into the complaint especially it relates to the affairs of Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai, a Central Government organisation. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the investigation has to be taken over by the second respondent/CBI straightaway from the first respondent for the purpose of conducting investigation. For taking over the investigation, the second respondent has got enormous powers especially when the investigation conducted by the first respondent so far is improper. When serious allegations have been made against the affairs of the Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai, it is only proper for the second respondent/CBI to take up the investigation from the first respondent. 8. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI would contend that normally, the investigation agency will not take up any case on their own except by orders of the Central Government or Court or by the Central Vigilance Commission or on the recommendation of the State Government. Merely because the petitioner association has given a complaint to the respondent/CBI it cannot be taken up for investigation especially when the State Police has already registered a case in Crime No. 144 of 2012 and proceeded with the investigation. The second respondent/CBI will not evince interest in taking up investigation of a particular case, unless it is directed by the Court or the Central Government or the Central Vigilance Commission or with the consent of the State Government to do so. When the association has already approached the State Police and a case was also registered, it is not proper for the petitioner association to seek for investigation by the respondent/CBI. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent /State Police would contend that the petitioner association has subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the local police by preferring a complaint. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent /State Police would contend that the petitioner association has subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the local police by preferring a complaint. On the basis of such complaint, a case was also registered in Crime No. 144 of 2012 and investigation was carried out by the State Police and the investigation is pending. By registering a first information report on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner itself is in tune with the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case mentioned supra. In any event, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner in seeking for transfer of investigation to the second respondent/CBI without specifically referring to the lacuna in the investigation so far carried out by the first respondent. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of both the petitions. 10. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. Before dealing with the rival submission, this Court thought it necessary to extract the petition as filed by the petitioners, as follows:- Crl.OP No. 1536 of 2014 “1) The NITTR (Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research) was established in Taramani Chennai, as an autonomous institute by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India in the year 1964 to train the faculty of engineering institutions across the country. It has its extension centres in Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kerala. 2) Levelling various charges of corruption and suspecting the involvement of the following accused in the entire scandal A1 “SRK . Prasad, Chairman of Board of Governors” NITTR A2 “Mohan “Director” Member Secretary “Board of Governors” NITTR A3 “Veerasamy” Retired SI (Sanitary Inspector turned Health Officer)” (Kingpin) A4 “Ashok Thakur” Secretary, MHRD New Delhi (who continues to abet the scam) the petitioner preferred a written complaint to the respondent on 13.12.2013 3) But the respondent has disobeyed the Constitutional Bench directive of the Supreme Court in WP (Crl.) 68 of 2008 dated 12.11.2013, solely since A1 is the brother of Ex-MP of Nilgiris Shri. Prabhu, and owes his appointment to illegal political influence and the A-2 and A-3 are hand-maidens of A1. A4 is also powerful and has aided and abetted the corruption of the other accused (by overtly trashing corruption complaints and encouraging their corrupt actions) as a consequences of possible pay-offs as illegal influence, which in my case is an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this plea seeking initiation of action against the respondent in terms of the 2nd sentence of Para III (IV) of the Constitution Bench judgment in WP (Crl) 68 of 2008 dated 12.11.2013 vide 2013 (6) CTC 405.” Crl.OP No. 1537 of 2014 “1) The NITTR (Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research) was established in Taramani Chennai, as an autonomous institute by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India in the year 1964 to train the faculty of engineering institutions across the country. It has its extension centres in Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kerala. 2). Levelling various charges of corruption and suspecting the involvement of the following accused in the entire scandal A1 “SRK . Prasad, Chairman of Board of Governors” NITTR A2 “Mohan” Director “Member Secretary” Board of Governors” NITTR A3 “Veerasamy” Retired SI (Sanitary Inspector turned Health Officer) “(Kingpin) A4 “Ashok Thakur” Secretary, MHRD New Delhi (who continues to abet the scam) the petitioner preferred a written complaint to the respondent on 31.12.2013 3) But the respondent has disobeyed the Constitutional Bench directive of the Supreme Court in WP (Crl.) 68 of 2008 dated 12.11.2013, solely since A1 is the brother of Ex-MP of Nilgiris Shri. Prabhu, and owes his appointment to illegal political influence and the A-2 and A-3 are hand-maidens of A1. A4 is also powerful and has aided and abetted the corruption of the other accused (by overtly trashing corruption complaints and encouraging their corrupt actions) as a consequences of possible pay-offs as illegal influence, which in my case is an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this plea seeking a direction to the second respondent in terms of the 2nd sentence of Para III (III) of the Constitution Bench judgment in WP (Crl) 68 of 2008 dated 12.11.2013 vide 2013 (6) CTC 405 vis-a-vis the complaint to the second respondent dated 31.12.2013 and to probe the case in Crime No.144 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent.” 11. From a reading of the averments contained in Criminal Original Petitions, which are similar and identical, it is clear that the petitioners have not assigned any reason complaining improper investigation by the State Police or the necessity to take over the investigation by the respondent/CBI. The Criminal Original Petitions are bereft of any material particulars. The petitioner has not stated anything as to why the investigation so far conducted by the State Police has to be transferred to the respondent/CBI. While so, the grievance of the petitioner that CBI has not taken up the investigation and registered a case cannot be countenanced. Consequently, it cannot be said that the respondents have in any manner contravened the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. 12. Be that as it may, let us now consider the averments raised by the petitioner association as well as the individual petitioner in both these Petitions. While doing so, this Court is not inclined to narrate the entire contents of the complaint given by the petitioners. However, it can be said that the petitioners have narrated various events relating to misappropriation of funds of the institute. It is needless to mention that on the basis of the complaint given by the association, the State Police has registered a case in Crime No. 144 of 2012 and taken up investigation. Thereafter, some of the members of the petitioner association have sent large number of complaints directly to the respondent/CBI. Since CBI has not acted on such complaints, the present petition has been filed. 13. As stated supra, from the narration of the averments in the petitions, nothing could be elicited. However, the association now seeks for investigation by the respondent/CBI after registering a first information report. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Honourable Supreme Court in the constitution bench decision reported in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others) AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1476 has held that the High Court has got enormous power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue directions to the CBI to take up investigation. No doubt, this Court has got power to issue such a direction to the respondent/CBI but such power has to be exercised sparingly. No doubt, this Court has got power to issue such a direction to the respondent/CBI but such power has to be exercised sparingly. In the very same decision, the Honourable Supreme Court has cautioned that such extra-ordinary 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 investigations. In the present case, the petitioner has not even given any reason for seeking transfer of the investigation to the respondent/CBI. Even though the petitioner has merely made some allegations, those allegations are only required to be investigated by the State Police and it does not warrant an investigation by the respondent/CBI. In this context, the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, after analysing various factors, have referred to the earlier decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of I.R. Coelho ( AIR 2007 SC 861 : 2007 AIR SCW 611) wherein it was held as follows:- “(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. 15. In the very same decision, in para Nos. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. 15. In the very same decision, in para Nos. 45 and 46, it was held as follows:- “45. 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. 46. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 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 extra-ordinary 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 investigations. 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 investigations. 16. The petitioner association cannot be expected to simply say that they have made certain allegations which needs to be investigated only by the respondent/CBI. Even for investigation by any of the agencies, first, the petitioner needs to substantiate the allegations by producing documentary evidence. In this case, on the basis of complaint given by one of the members of the petitioner association, the case in Crime No. 144 of 2012 came to be registered by the State police and investigation is being carried on. Thereafter, the petitioner association want the investigation to be conducted by the respondent/CBI on the ground that the institute viz., National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai is a central government organisation and that the complaint was erroneously given to the State Police. Such an averment of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The State Police has rightly entertained the complaint given by the Petitioner Association and registered the case in Crime No. 144 of 2012. It cannot be said that the State Police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the case in Crime No. 144 of 2012. 17. From the Status report filed by the investigation officer in Crime No. 144 of 2012, it could be seen that the investigation into the case registered on 01.04.2012 in Crime No. 144 of 2012 has not been completed so far. In the Status report, the investigation officer has simply stated that the document sought for have not been furnished by the management and therefore he could not proceed further. This cannot be accepted. The investigation officer has got enormous powers for production of documents required for investigation. If the documents sought for are not forthcoming, resort could be made for recovery of such documents in a manner known to law. Therefore, the delay in concluding the investigation by the State Police on the ground that the management did not furnish the documents cannot be accepted. However, that by itself will not be a ground for transferring the investigation to the respondent/CBI nor the petitiner, in this petition complained slackness on the part of the first respondent State Police in concluding the investigation. 18. However, that by itself will not be a ground for transferring the investigation to the respondent/CBI nor the petitiner, in this petition complained slackness on the part of the first respondent State Police in concluding the investigation. 18. In the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and others 2008 Criminal Law Journal 1891 (SC) it was held that neither the accused, nor the complainant nor the informant are entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate the crime in which they may be interested. In this case, merely the petitioner wants to entrust the investigation to the respondent/CBI, this Court cannot issue such a direction. 19. In the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of T. Sajjina vs. State of Kerala and others, 2008 Crl.Law Journal 2712 (Kerala) it was held that when the petitioner has already ventilated his grievance by approaching the avenues ordinarily available to him, the prayer sought for to direct the investigation by the CBI cannot be countenanced. 20. Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly states that even without an order of the Magistrate, a Police Officer can investigate into cognisable offences, within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place. If Section 156 of Cr.P.C. is applied in this case, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, the State Police has already registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2012 and investigated it. Such a case was registered without the intervention of the Court and on the basis of existence of a cognisable offence, the case came to be registered. Therefore, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation is conducted, he can very well approach this Court after giving details of the lacuna in the investigation and giving details of the crime in a manner known to law. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of UP & others) 2013 (6) CTC 353 to contend that once a complaint is given, automatically, first information report should be registered and it is mandatory. In this case, even after receipt of complaints, the respondent/CBI has not registered any case and it is in violation of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. In this case, even after receipt of complaints, the respondent/CBI has not registered any case and it is in violation of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the constitution bench decision, the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and CBI Manual, power of the Police vis-a-vis CBI to conduct preliminary enquiry is manifest. However, it was held that the power of the CBI cannot be equated with that of the regular Police under the State Act. It was also pointed out that first information report has to be registered if a cognisable offence is made out in the complaint. It was further held that when the information received does not disclose cognisable offence, a preliminary enquiry could be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognisable offence is made out or not. After such preliminary enquiry, if the complaint disclose a cognisable offence, a first information report has to be registered. It was further held that such preliminary enquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognisable offence. In this context, Para Nos. 110 and 111 of the Constitution Bench decision can usefully be extracted hereunder:- “110) Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR. Conclusion/Directions: 111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. 22. In the present case, the petitioner association has alleged various acts of corruption and other allegations relating to misappropriation of funds. Earlier, at the instance of the petitioner association, the case in Crime No. 144 of 2012 came to be registered by the State Police and now the petitioner wants the investigation to be done by the respondent/CBI. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/CBI would submit that the Agency is not interested in taking up the investigation without the direction of the competent authorities nor the petitioner had made out any case warranting the agency to take up the investigation by the CBI. On reading of the complaint given by the petitioner in both the cases, it is clear that all is not well in the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chennai. Therefore, definitely, this Court can issue a direction to carry out investigation into the affairs of the institute which is already pending with the State Police. In this regard, the petitioner in Crl.OP No. 1537 of 2014 shall also furnish documentary evidence to the investigation officer, who is investigating the case in Crime No.144 of 2012 so that further investigation could be carried on. This Court also hereby directs the investigation officer in Crime No. 144 of 2012 to proceed further with the investigation, obtain documentary evidence from the Management and proceed further in accordance with law, without causing any further delay. At any rate, the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the absence of any specific reason for entrusting the investigation with respondent/CBI. At any rate, the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the absence of any specific reason for entrusting the investigation with respondent/CBI. Liberty is also given to the Association to approach this Court if the investigation is not taken up and completed by the investigation officer within a reasonable time. 23. With the above direction, both the Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.