The transfer of criminal investigation to an independent agency requires exceptional circumstances; dissatisfaction with the investigation's pace does not warrant such action.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioners by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct OP No.1 to register the written complaint of the petitioners as an FIR or in the alternative to direct other agencies to conduct due and proper investigation under monitoring of this Court or to transfer the investigation of the registered FIR to OP No.1-cum-Central Bureau of Investigation or Economic Offence Wings of Odisha or to any other appropriate independent agency.

2. The short facts involved in this case are on 27.08.2020 the petitioner No.1 who is aged about 64 years had been to the State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Palasuni for redemption of his SBI Mutual Fund for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, but soon after receipt of his application by the Branch Manager, he received a call from Phone No. 7978379071 suggesting him to hold the Mutual Fund by not redeeming the bond till March, 2021. However, on 04.04.2021, the petitioner called in the number and requested for redemption, but on being asked, on 05.04.2021 he met the Branch Manager who introduced to one Subrat Kumar Mohanty to help him for redemption as well as management of the funds. Accordingly, said Subrat Kumar Mohanty installed a App MyCAMS in the mobile of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 applied for redemption of bond. On being advised to deposit the redemption amount in an account, the petitioner No.1 provided a cheque to Subrat Kumar Mohanty and the Branch Manager with endorsement “pay to yourself” for investment in SBI Electoral Bond for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and in the process said Subrat Kumar Mohanty(OP No.8) transferred a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- on five occasions for the purpose of investment in SBI Electoral Bond and IPO shares and later on, the petitioner No.1 found the bonds/certificates to be forged/manufactures by OP No.8- Subrat Kumar Mohanty and tried to get back his amount of Rs.29,00,000/- from said Subrat Kumar Mohanty, but in vain. Finding no way out, the petitioner and two others who are also being defrauded in same manner lodged an FIR before the IIC, Mancheswar P.S. which came to be registered as PS Case No. 57 of 2022 and the case was investigated into and accordingly, a preliminary charge sheet was filed with arrest of OP No.8, but final charge sheet is still awaited. On the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court for the relief indicated supra.

3. Mr.Suryakanta Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners without disputing about submission of preliminary charge sheet, however strongly argues by submitting that although the legitimate grievance of the petitioners appears to have investigated into, but in fact, there is no progress in the investigation, however, the Investigating Officer is only sitting ideal by submitting preliminary charge sheet after arresting OP No.8 and keeping the investigation open. He further submits that the investigating agency has virtually not done anything after submitting preliminary charge sheet on 26.02.2022, but the hardened money not only of a senior citizen, but also of different persons is involved in a larger conspiracy of financial fraud and none of the staff of the bank have even been examined by the police whose conduct by itself speaks in volume. Mr.Dash by taking this Court through the decision in Pooja Pal vrs. Union of India; (2016) 3 SCC 135 submits that the petitioners cannot become the victim of faulty investigation to reduce the justice a casualty and mere subm