State Police is also capable for conducting investigation of a case.

Common Order:

Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with three petitions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2005, the petitioner has filed two petitions viz., Crl.O.P.No.7005 of 2005 seeking for the relief of registering a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 01.03.2005 to the respondent namely the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second application filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7017/2005 is for the relief of a direction to the respondent namely C.B.I., Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 01.03.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lastly, the petitioner has also come forward with the petition in Crl.O.P.No.31375 of 2006 for the relief of transferring the investigation pending on the file of the fourth respondent namely the Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Chennai, in Cr.No.23 of 2005 to the file of the C.B.I., sixth respondent in Crl.O.P.No.31375 of 2006.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint in this case was given as early as on 24.06.2005 and till now, there is absolutely no progress whatsoever in respect of the investigation conducted by the fourth respondent police. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this matter involves huge amount of Rs.33/- Crores and further the petitioner has been put into great hardship and irreparable loss and he is having enough materials to substantiate his case as per the complaint given by the petitioner dated 24.06.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except arresting one accused, the investigating agency viz., the fourth respondent has not taken any further steps to arrest the other accused and also to collect any other materials in respect of the allegations levelled against the accused persons in the complaint dated 24.06.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended and brought to the notice of this Court about a letter dated 2. 2007 written by the fourth respondent police directing the petitioner to come for enquiry in respect of the case. By placing reliance on this communication, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after filing the petition before this Court and only after the matter was taken up for hearing, the fourth respondent has taken steps to summon the petitioner in respect of the enquiry in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the communication clearly shows that the fourth respondent has not taken any steps in respect of the investigation in this case so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was orally informed by the fourth respondent that the complaint preferred by the petitioner was likely to be closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the communication dated 111. 2006 by the Ministry of Finance to the petitioner discloses that already Canara Bank has given a similar complaint against the very same accused company to the C.B.I. and the same was registered on 17. 2006.

.3. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has come forward with certain specific allegations levelled against the fourth respondent in his petition in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 specifically alleging that the present Investigating Officer is working hand in glove with the accused Mr. Siddhartha Ray with an ulterior motive of closing the case without any further investigation. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in para 10 of the petition, it is specifically stated that if the present investigating officer continues to handle the case, the fraud committed