ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T. Palanivel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent 1 and 2. 2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to expedite the investigation in connection with the Crime No. RC-9(E)/2017-CBI//EOW/Chennai, pending on the file of the second respondent. 3. The petitioner is the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited and there are 31 complaints against the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 registered a case in Crime No. RC-9(E)/2017- CBI/EOW/Chennai dated 06.12.2017 under Section 120(B) r/w. 420, 468, 471 IPC against 47 persons and the third respondent has filed a petition in Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 2690 of 2018 to implead himself in this petition. 4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that this Court by its order dated 15.11.2017 in Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos. 14413 and 14437 of 2017, ordered to transfer the investigation from the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar to the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai and also directed the first respondent herein to file preliminary report on 05.12.2017 and the petitioner prayed to expedite the investigation pending on the file of the second respondent herein. 5. On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that it is not possible to file a report each month and the second respondent has to verify so many documents and to verify stock in five godowns and it is stated that the second respondent has verified only three godowns and two more godowns are yet to be verified and filing preliminary report will affect the further investigation. 6. On the side of the third respondent, it is stated that only with the conveyance of the Bank officials, the offence has been committed and two important families in Virudhunagar has prepared a number of people namely, Auto Driver, Hair Dresser, etc to get loan and without enquiring about their credential, the petitioner Bank has granted loan in their name. Without the help of the Bank official, these offence could not have been done and the petitioner Bank should be impleaded as A1 and the third respondent filed a complaint which clearly reveals the involvement of the petitioner Bank and there is no necessity for an order for expediting the investigation. 7. Without the help of the Bank official, these offence could not have been done and the petitioner Bank should be impleaded as A1 and the third respondent filed a complaint which clearly reveals the involvement of the petitioner Bank and there is no necessity for an order for expediting the investigation. 7. On the side of the third respondent, it is stated that CBI is colluding with the Bank and it is necessary to implead the Bank as an accused. The Bank is given a higher status and the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 8. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that if the Bank officials are involved in the offence, the CBI can take action against them and the third respondent cannot come forward to interfere in the investigation. The third respondent can approach the CBI and can help them. But he has no right to interfere in the investigation. The third respondent is the main offender. The petitioner herein can question the investigation only after the final report is filed. In Support, Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. W.N. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 1083 is cited. 9. On the side of the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that only on the basis of the Certificate issued by the third respondent herein, the Bank loan was sanctioned. The third respondent has issued Certificate for quality and quantity. It is the duty of the Bank official to verify the goods and then Test Certificate but the Test Certificate is issued as if the quantity is the same. The officials are different from the Bank. The third respondent is the prime accused. The third respondent herein has no locus standi to interfere in the investigation. Some of the Bank Officials co-operated with the accused. Out of five godowns, three were verified and two more godowns are under scrutiny. The third respondent cannot say that the CBI is supporting the accused and he cannot direct the CBI how to investigate. Only if CBI left the Bank officials at the time of filing chargesheet, the third respondent can file the petition. 10. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the Bank cannot be an accused. It is only a victim. May be some of the Bank officials are accused. The officials are different from the Bank. Only if CBI left the Bank officials at the time of filing chargesheet, the third respondent can file the petition. 10. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the Bank cannot be an accused. It is only a victim. May be some of the Bank officials are accused. The officials are different from the Bank. This Bank is 96 years old Bank and the Bank cannot be an accused. 11. A perusal of the records reveals that this Court has already transferred the investigation from the State Investigation Agency to CBI and the reasons stated by the third respondent is that the petitioner herein is also an accused and the present petition is filed by the petitioner only for expediting the investigation and the contention of the third respondent is that the Bank is also an accused. There is difference between a Bank and Bank Officials. The Bank is an institution whereas the officials are individuals. In this case, the Bank is supposed to be a victim. The money involved belonged to the Bank and in turn belonged to the investors who are public at large. In what way the third respondent will be prejudiced in expediting the investigation is not stated by the third respondent. The prayer is only against the Investigating Agency not against the third respondent. 12. The third respondent is an accused in this case and the accused cannot interfere in the mode of investigation. Though this Court ordered for filing preliminary report, it seems the CBI has not filed any report so far. It is stated that the investigation is completed with regard to three godowns and is pending with regard to two godowns. The offence is said to have been committed in the year 2017 and this Court has ordered transfer of the investigation on 15.12.2017. In this circumstances, this Court deems it fit to allow this petition by fixing a time frame for the CBI to complete the investigation. The CBI is hereby directed to expedite the investigation and to complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.