ORDER : This petition is filed to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.18 of 2016 from the file of the first respondent to the fourth respondent or any other independent agency for a fair and impartial investigation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father died leaving behind several properties to his legal heirs and that the petitioner is one among them. The other four legal heirs have joined together and executed a release deed in favour of one R.Udayakumar stating that they are the only legal heirs of the petitioner's father and that the release deed is for 3/4th share in the property. In view of the same, the petitioner as a legal heir of his father was suppressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the releasee R.Udayakumar is a Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Villupuram. In this background, the petitioner had given a complaint against R.Udayakumar and other brothers on 01.06.2015 which was perfunctorily closed as civil in nature on 15.06.2015. Since the named person in the FIR, R.Udayakumar was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Villupuram, the petitioner had filed Crl.O.P.No.16804 of 2015 seeking for a direction to the respondents to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.06.2015 and to investigate the same and file a report. This Court by an order dated 08.07.2015 had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in-charge of Central Crime Branch, Team-17, Chennai to conduct further enquiry in respect of the complaint given by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the specific direction of this Court to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in-charge of Central Crime Branch, Team-17, Chennai to conduct further enquiry, the enquiry was being conducted by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Vepery, Chennai. For that purpose, he relied upon the summons issued by the aforesaid Inspector of Police. It is his submission that since the person named in the complaint namely, R.Udayakumar was a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a batchmate of the Investigating Officer, there was a strong apprehension that there would not be a fair and impartial investigation. 5. For that purpose, he relied upon the summons issued by the aforesaid Inspector of Police. It is his submission that since the person named in the complaint namely, R.Udayakumar was a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a batchmate of the Investigating Officer, there was a strong apprehension that there would not be a fair and impartial investigation. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the direction given by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16804 of 2015 was only to conduct further enquiry and in obedience to the direction of this Court dated 08.07.2015, it was the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in-charge of Central Crime Branch, Team-17, Chennai had conducted the enquiry wherein the petitioner was personally enquired. In support of the same, the learned Public Prosecutor also produced the original records to substantiate his submission. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police and not the Deputy Commissioner of Police, it is seen that what was ordered by this Court on 08.07.2015 was only to conduct further enquiry and not further investigation. Pursuant to the same, it is seen from the records that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had conducted a preliminary enquiry and arrived at a finding and based on the finding, the Inspector of Police has taken up the investigation and consequently, issued summons to the petitioner in which the summon dated 10.06.2017 is one among them. As such, the petitioner's submission that the enquiry was being conducted by the Inspector of Police is falsified. From the preliminary enquiry report produced before this Court, it is seen that the it is only the Deputy Commissioner of Police who had conducted the preliminary enquiry and not the Inspector of Police. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation pursuant to the preliminary enquiry was being conducted in a fair and impartial manner. However, it is not disputed that R.Udayakumar, the named person in the FIR happened to be a Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Villupuram. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation pursuant to the preliminary enquiry was being conducted in a fair and impartial manner. However, it is not disputed that R.Udayakumar, the named person in the FIR happened to be a Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Villupuram. When the petitioner has raised a doubt stating that there may not be a fair and impartial enquiry since R.Udayakumar, the person named in the FIR was from the same police department which is now conducting the investigation, such a doubt cannot be brushed aside. If the present Investigating Officer from the Tamil Nadu Police Department is permitted to continue the investigation, there is a possibility that the petitioner could view the investigation to be unfair, if a final report happens to be filed against his wishes. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate that the investigation be transferred to some independent agency. 9. It is rather unfortunate to mention here with little embarrassment, that by relying upon the summons issued by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Vepery, Chennai, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has violated this Court's earlier order dated 08.07.2015, owing to which, this Court had to personally summon the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the fact came to be disproved on production of the original file. It was not proper on the part of the petitioner's counsel to have misled the Court with such a submission which gave way to summoning a high ranking police official. The counsel first owes a duty in assisting the Court in the right direction and by suppressing or misleading the Court, it only damages the image of the institution. After the production of the file, the counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner was personally enquired by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which fact was not only suppressed in the petition but he had misguided the Court during his oral arguments stating that the enquiry was being conducted by the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Vepery, Chennai. Nevertheless, it would also be relevant to mention here that if the concerned constable attached to the Deputy Commissioner's office had come with clear instructions to the learned Public Prosecutor, such an embarrassment could have been avoided. 10. Nevertheless, it would also be relevant to mention here that if the concerned constable attached to the Deputy Commissioner's office had come with clear instructions to the learned Public Prosecutor, such an embarrassment could have been avoided. 10. In fine, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis of the aforesaid reasonings. Hence, the investigation in Cr.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent herein, now pending investigation before the third respondent herein is directed to be transferred to the CBCID, Chennai and on receipt of the same, an appropriate investigating officer, not less than the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall conduct a fresh investigation and pass appropriate final report/charge sheet as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.