ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed seeking for further investigation in Crime No.08 of 2017 by a different agency. 2. The petitioner Bank is involved in the business of extending financial facilities to the prospective customers under various schemes. The Bank also had a Gold Jewellery Deposit Loan Scheme and under the Scheme fourteen persons had availed load by pledging gold jewellery. The loan was also disbursed through the bank account of those fourteen persons. 3. At the time when the loan was sanctioned, one Balaji who was a jewel appraiser had certified that the jewels pledged by these fourteen persons was genuine and based on the same, the loan was sanctioned. 4. The Bank subsequently came to know that the said Balaji has given a false certificate and the entire jewels that were pledged by these fourteen persons were fake and spurious. Immediately, thereafter, a complaint came to be given by the petitioner and an FIR was registered in Crime No.08 of 2017 against the 14 named accused persons and the above said Balaji for offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC. 5. The grievance of the petitioner Bank is that a final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam only as against the above said Balaji and the name of all the other accused persons have been dropped. No notice was issued to the petitioner Bank when the final report was filed while dropping the names of the other accused persons. The Bank came to know about this development only after summons was served on them when the matter was at the stage of trial. 6. The petitioner Bank therefore approached this Court seeking for further investigation by a different agency on the ground that the entire investigation is vitiated and the respondent police has intentionally dropped the names of the accused persons who were actually involved in the crime. 7. A status report has been filed by the Inspector of Police. The relevant portions of the status report are extracted hereunder: 4. I submit that during the course of investigation, I have examined the following witnesses and recorded their statements: (1) Tr.Kabaleeswaran - Defacto complainant / Petitioner herein (2) Tr.Mahadevan - Branch manager (3) Tr.Rajendran & (4)Tr. Ranganathan - Jewel Appraisers. (5) Tr.Jagan, (6) Tr.K. Raji, (7) Tr. G. Venkatesan (8) Tr.C.Dinesh (9) Tr.Raguraman; (10) Tr.Karthick, (11) Tr. I submit that during the course of investigation, I have examined the following witnesses and recorded their statements: (1) Tr.Kabaleeswaran - Defacto complainant / Petitioner herein (2) Tr.Mahadevan - Branch manager (3) Tr.Rajendran & (4)Tr. Ranganathan - Jewel Appraisers. (5) Tr.Jagan, (6) Tr.K. Raji, (7) Tr. G. Venkatesan (8) Tr.C.Dinesh (9) Tr.Raguraman; (10) Tr.Karthick, (11) Tr. Kaliyamoorthy & (12) Tr.Balamurugan. Jewel loan members in the complainant's bank, All the witnesses speaks about the occurrence of this case 5. I submit that during the course of investigation, I have arrested the accused Balaji on 14.12.2017 at about 16.30 hours, and his confession statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses, in which he confessed that by using the misappropriation amount, he was purchased the following items i.e. 1 Tourist Van bearing Regn No TN-37-AX-5587, TATA Indica Car bearing Reg No. TN-22 BH-6107 and Maruthi 800 Car bearing Reg No. TN-07-C-1765 and property in S.No. Doc.No.260/3 F1 in the year 2009 and the said properties were seized under cover of seizure mahazar. Then, the arrested accused was remanded to judicial custody. 6. I submit that after completion of elaborate and details investigation, on 11.10.2018, I have filed charge sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Nagapattinam and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.435 of 2019 dated 22.5.2019 The next hearing date of this case is posted on 17.2.2021 for examination of the witnesses LW1 to 3 7. I submit that through the examination of the witnesses, whose names were mentioned in the complaint i.e. L.W.10-Tr.Rajee, L.W.11-Tr.Venkatesan, L.W.12-Diensh, L.W.15-Tr.Raguraman, L.W.16-Karthick, LW.17-Tr. Kaliyamoorthy and L.W.18-Tr.Balamurugan, clearly reveals that the accused Balaji without the knowledge of the above said persons, whose are relatives and friends and without their consent had illegally kept covering jewels as gold jewels in their respective jewel loan accounts for his wrongful gain. In the confession statement also, the accused Balaji admitted that his family members did not aware about his illegal offence. Through the witnesses statements and the confession of the accused, it is clearly reveals that without the knowledge and consent of his family members he only alone committed the offence and the same was admitted in his confession. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. 9. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. 9. In the present case, the records clearly reveal the fact that the petitioner Bank had extended gold jewellery loan to fourteen named accused persons. Then appraiser viz., Balaji is also stated to be a close relative of these accused persons and he had intentionally given a fake certificate as if the gold jewellery that was pledged was a genuine one. It is also seen from records that the loan amount was transferred to the account of the accused persons. 10. For reasons best known to the Investigation Officer, except the said Balaji who had given the fabricated certificate, all the other accused persons were made as witnesses in this case on the ground that these accused persons were not aware about the misdeeds of the above said Balaji. The respondent police has proceeded further with the investigation on a wrong premise and the status report reads that this conclusion was arrived at based on the confession made by the above said Balaji. In the considered view of this Court, the 4th respondent has conducted a slipshod investigation which requires the interference of this Court. 11. Apart form the above illegality, there is yet another illegality that can be seen in the present case. The FIR contained the names of fourteen accused persons. If the Investigation Officer, on completion of investigation, decides to drop the names of these accused persons at the time of filing the final report, it is mandatory on the part of the Investigation Officer to have served a notice to the petitioner before the final report was filed. This procedure ought to have been complied with at least by the Court below when the final report was taken cognizance. This Court has time and again held that where some of the accused persons, whose names finds place in the FIR, are dropped at the time of filing the final report, a notice must be issued to the defacto complainant to enable the defacto complainant to file a protest petition opposing the dropping of the names of some of the accused persons. The law on this issue was dealt with in detail by this Court after considering all the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C.Ve.Shanmugam vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-Division, Rosanai Police Station, Tindivanam, Villupuram District reported in 2010 2 MLJ Crl 833. 12. This position of law has been reiterated even subsequently in various judgments and in spite of the same, the same mistake keeps recurring and even the subordinate Courts seem to be unaware of this procedure. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the cognizance of the final report taken by the Court below and accordingly the same is quashed. The Court below is directed to keep the entire proceedings in abeyance. 14. There shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to immediately hand over the case diary in Crime No.08 of 2017 to the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Central Zone. This process shall be completed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Immediately thereafter, the Superintendent of Police shall handover the investigation to the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Nagapattinam District. The Inspector of Police, CBCID shall continue with the further investigation in this case and a further final report shall be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam, within a period of three months thereafter. The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam shall thereafter take cognizance of the final report and proceed further in accordance with law. 15. This criminal original petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.