ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. These Original Petitions have been filed to direct the respondents to register the petitioners' complaint dated 17.07.2017 and 12.03.2018 as F.I.R. 3. Though the petitioners are different, the respondents and the issues are one and the same, all these petitions are heard together and are disposed of by a common order. For a sake of convenience, the narration of facts as stated in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5361 of 2018 is being discussed in this order. 4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that on 17.07.2017 and on 12.03.2018, the petitioners lodged a complaint respectively before the third respondent herein. During the year 2006 to 2007, the Ministry of Industry has come forward with the scheme with an intention to uplift the agriculturists to manufacture coir products. The first accused namely, Central Coir Board has to identify the beneficiaries and the fourth accused/Indian Bank has to sanction the loan. It is stated that only 10% share will have to be invested by the beneficiaries and the remaining amount would be borne by the Central Government. The petitioner is also one of the beneficiaries. 5. They were considered for sanctioning of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as loan and accordingly in loan Account No. 732630189, the same has been sanctioned in which a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- was meant for purchasing machineries and sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- was meant for purchasing raw materials. In his part, he has also invested a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as his share. 6. Prior to the disbursal of the said loan, the first accused has to certify the standard of the Engineering Company. The accused conspired together to swindle the Government amount. The first accused created fifth accused Company which is not in existence. There is no Registration Certificate or TIN Number available. These fictitious companies were made only for looting the Government money. It is stated that after the raw materials came, the fifth accused has installed the machineries in the petitioner's site and the petitioner found out that all those machineries were second handed and used and most of the same were not in working condition. These fictitious companies were made only for looting the Government money. It is stated that after the raw materials came, the fifth accused has installed the machineries in the petitioner's site and the petitioner found out that all those machineries were second handed and used and most of the same were not in working condition. The fifth accused has informed the petitioner that it is only a temporary erection and after some point of time, he will replace it by installing the new machineries. But he failed to fulfill his words. The petitioner have started his productions. But the products are not upto the standard and the petitioner approached the third accused for arranging new machineries and thereby, he came to understand that all the accused joined together and a fraud has been committed. As a temporary measure the accused have set up the above said Engineering companies purely with an ideal of embezzling the Government money and that is the reason why the said ready - made companies were being closed soon after the disbursement of loan. 7. The accused persons, by creating number of forged documents in the name of implementing the public welfare scheme, they have in some cases supplied poor quality machineries and in some cases no machinery has been provided. The petitioner has been classified as a defaulter of loan and the Bank appears to have initiated recovery proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner came to know about the fraud only belatedly when the bankers concerned have started their initiatives towards recovery of the loan and on verification, the petitioner came to understand that not only the petitioner, there are nearly about 50 persons who have also been made as an instrument by the accused persons for the purpose of misappropriating the public money. Infact in some case, borrowers are said to have approached the Civil Court for safeguarding their interest. The said modus of the accused persons clearly made out the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w. 120(B) of IPC. 8. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the first accused namely, Central Coir Board, Kochi and the second accused having registered office at Coir Board and the fifth accused is at Palani Taluk, Dindigul. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place only in the year 2006 to 2007. 8. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the first accused namely, Central Coir Board, Kochi and the second accused having registered office at Coir Board and the fifth accused is at Palani Taluk, Dindigul. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place only in the year 2006 to 2007. In the complaint, page No.4 it is stated that the machineries are supplied in substandard quality. The petitioner has not taken any steps against the fifth accused at that time. No private complaint was lodged against all the five accused so far. No other case was filed by the respondents against all the five accused for creation of false companies in paper. No sufficient proof is filed to prove only substandard machineries and secondary grade machineries were given to the petitioner during the year 2006 to 2007. It is stated that the offence narrated are only under the purview of prevention of Corruption Act and there is nothing for the respondents to register the case and even the first respondent cannot register a case without prior sanction of his superiors. Only on 19.03.2018, the petitioner has lodged the complaint and the complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Prosecution and there is no necessity for filing this petition at this stage that is within 15 days from the date of filing of the complaint. 9. On the side of the respondents, some standing orders were produced wherein it is stated that every petition received, either in the Directorate Headquarters or in the Detachment Offices, will be affixed with the date seal and assigned a current number. Petitions received directly in the Detachments should be forwarded to the Directorate Headquarters for disposal and no enquiry should be initiated on them without prior orders of the Director. 10. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that even prior to this petition so many other petitions were filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the offence stated is only an IPC offence. The petitioner has not filed any private complaint. The petitioner has not approached the lower Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 11. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has not furnished any copy of the bills. It is stated that the offence stated is only an IPC offence. The petitioner has not filed any private complaint. The petitioner has not approached the lower Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 11. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has not furnished any copy of the bills. The petitioner has not approached the respondents in person and only to escape the liability from loan recovery, the petitioner has filed this petition. 12. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the second accused is under suspension and the third accused is a public servant. The place of occurrence is Sivagangai District and the respondents refused to register the case. 13. On the side of the petitioner, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , which reads as follows: "Held, the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation - This is the general rule and must be strictly complied with." 14. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner lodged the complaint on 19.03.2018. The date of borrowing and bills regarding the machineries are not furnished by the petitioner. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that loan amount is given to the petitioner. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the occurrence took place in the year 2005 to 2006. Admittedly, the petitioner was aware that the quality of the goods is not good. The reason for not taking action against A5 from 2005-2006 onwards is not stated in the petition. For the past 12 years, the petitioner has failed to take any action against A5. It is stated that when the petitioner approached A3 for arrangement of new machinery as stated in the petition, he found out that there is some conspiracy going on between all the accused. If so he must have taken some steps much earlier. The alleged offence mentioned in the complaint is only under IPC and not under Prevention of Corruption Act. If so he must have taken some steps much earlier. The alleged offence mentioned in the complaint is only under IPC and not under Prevention of Corruption Act. Only when the Bank insisted for recovery of loan amount, the petitioner has come forwarded with this complaint and prior to that the petitioner has not filed any petition before the lower Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the IPC offence. The respondents have received the complaint and forwarded the same for necessary instructions. The respondents cannot investigate the matter and cannot conduct even preliminary enquiry without approval of the Director. More than that, the complaint was lodged only two weeks ago. The respondents have to get instructions from the Superiors to register the FIR. There is no merit in the petition and it is left open for the respondents to take action in accordance with law. 15. With the above observations, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.