ORDER: Mr. E. Valsaraj, a sitting M.L.A. in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the whip of the Congress Legislature Party, has approached this Court brought the petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, with the following prayer: “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent (Superintendent of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., (ACB), Madras) to investigate the complaint dated 18.3.1997 preferred to 2nd respondent (Inspector General of Police, Union Territory of Pondicherry).” 2. The facts culled out from the petition and the counter, which are relevant and required for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are given under: (a) One Kandasamy M.L.A. belonging to Tamil Manila Congress preferred a complaint to Kirumambakkam Police Station in Bahour Commune, Pondicherry alleging that in the early hours of 13.3.1997 at about 1.30 midnight the accused persons, namely, (1) D.Ramachandran, (2) Natarajan, (3) Kannan, (4) the driver of one V.Vaithilingam, the Leader of the Opposition Party, and (5) V.Vaithilingam had jointly in furtherence of a common intention offered a sum of Rs.9,50,000 to him as reward for doing them a favour in exercise of his legislative duty enabling them to detabilise the present coalition government by defection. This was registered in Crime No.16 of 1997 against the said accused persons. (b) Another M.L.A. by name Rajasekaran, belonging to T.M.C., preferred yet another complaint to Kattarikuppam Police Station stating that a similar attempt to cause his defection with an offer to pay a handsome amount was made by the above said persons to do a favour in his legislative duty by defecting in their favour. This was registered by the said police in Crime No.18 of 1997 against the above said persons. (c) Both the complaints were made on the same day, that is, on 13.3.1997 on 17.3.1997, the Home Department, Governement of Union Territory of Pondicherry, directed investigation of both the cases pertaining to the alleged bribing M.L. As. to be transferred to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption). On receipt of this order, the second respondent. Inspector General of Police, Pondicherry, directed both the cases will all the documents pertaining to the investigation to be handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the said Superintendent of Police was also directed to conduct enquiries into these two cases and submit a report to the Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry within three days. Accordingly, the report was submitted on 21.3.1997. Accordingly, the report was submitted on 21.3.1997. (d) In the meantime, the second respondent, Inspector General of Police was officially corresponding with Joint Director, C.B.I.New Delhi for Transfer of all the cases for investigation. (e) On 18.3.1997 the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption received through Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, a confidential note sent by the Lt. Governor, enclosing a representation dated 18.3.1997 signed by 9 members of the Legislative Assembly based by V.Vaithilingam, Leader of the Opposition Party, with a direction that the Lt.Governor desired that the aforesaid representation be made as part of the enquiry/investigation into the recent case of bribing of M.L.As. and others. (f) On the same date, two other representations by three M.L.As. of AIADMK and Convenor D.Ramachandran to the Lt.Governor were also enclosed to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance with direction that these representations be made as part of the enquiry/investigation as in the other one. Even prior to 18.3.1997, that is, on 16.3.1997 Communist Party (Marxist) through its Secretary, Balasubramanian also made a similar representation to the Lt.Governor, which was also forwarded to the S.P. Vigilance with same direction. (g) On 28.4.1997 the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./ ACB, Madras sent a message requesting Chief Secretary of Pondicherry to direct the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to hand over all the material papers relating to the investigation of Crime No.16 of 1997 and Crime No.18 of 1997 for further investigation by the C.B.I./ACB, Madras. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance handed over all the complaints referred to above inclusive of the Memorandum dated 18.3.1997. The subject-matter in this petition before this Court. As such, the complaint given by the petitioner and others on 18.3.1997 and the complaint given by the other political parties on 16.3.1997 and the complaint given on 13.3.1997 and the connected representations made by others, all were handed over to the third respondent, Superintendent of Police SPE/C.B.I./ACB, Madras on 29.4.1997. On receipt of these complaints and other memorandum, the third respondent took up investigation and collected materials to find out the ultimate truth in the complaints given by the respective parties. (h) On 28.8.1997 the petitioner Valsaraj, M.L.A., has filed the petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. before this Court requesting for investigation by the third respondent on the complaint given by him and other 8 persons under the leadership of V.Vaithialingam, leader of opposition party dated 18.3.1997. (h) On 28.8.1997 the petitioner Valsaraj, M.L.A., has filed the petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. before this Court requesting for investigation by the third respondent on the complaint given by him and other 8 persons under the leadership of V.Vaithialingam, leader of opposition party dated 18.3.1997. The petitioner through this petition would submit that the complaint given to the second respondent on 18.3.1997 by the petitioner and 6 others though disclosed cognisable offences, the second respondent, Inspector General of Police, had not registered the same and cases on investigation where as the complaint given by Kandasamy, M.L.A. and Rajasekaran, M.L.A. were registered under Secs.8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Secs.116 and 34 , I.P.C., that in the enquiry made by the petitioner and his party revealed that he two M.L.As., namely, Thiru Kandasamy and Thiru Rajasekaran made the false allegations at the instance of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble Home Minister and that the said Kandasamy, M.L.A. had received a huge sum of money on bribe from the Chief Minister and Home Minister to stage manage the display of money is the Assembly, as if the bribe amount was given by the accused persons, in order to bring discredit to the opposition, whereby the said Kandasamy, M.L.A. was liable to be proceeded for the offences under Secs.7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble Home Minister were liable to be proceeded under Secs.8 and 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Secs.120-B and 116 read with Secs. 34, I.P.C. 3. On the strength of the petition, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry made on the petitioner's side revealed that huge amount had been withdrawn from the United Commercial Bank on the particular day by the office-before of the ruling coalition parties and that though this was brought to the notice of the third respondent by the petitioner's party, they were informed that since the Government of Pondicherry had only made a request for investigation of the complaints preferred by Thiru Kandasamy and Thiru Rajasekaran and there was no specific request for investigation of the complaint preferred the petitioner and others, they would not in a position to investigation the complaint. In such a situation, according to the counsel for the petitioner, this Court has been approached requesting to invoke inherent powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. to give a direction to the third respondent, C.B.I, to investigate the complaint dated 18.3.1997. 4. In the counter filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, the Chief Secretary and Inspector General of Police, it has been specifically stated that the representation made by the petitioner's party on 18.3.1997 and the representation made on 16.5.1997 by the communist party and also the representation given by the AIADMK M.L.As., all have been sent along with the two already registered cases by the respective police stations to the third respondent for the purpose of investigation as desired by the Lt.Governor. The third respondent also filed a counter specifically denying the allegation that the third respondent expressed their inability to the petitioner to investigate the complaint for want of specific request. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor at the outset raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. He cited several authorities, in order to show that much a direction cannot be given to police officer by this Court under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. However, in my view, I feel that the petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. is maintainable, in view of the decision in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , (1992)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 335. In this decision, while interpreting Sec.482 , Crl.P.C. and Art.226 of the Constitution, the Apex Court has held as follows: “The sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognisable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievances, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. It needs no emphasis that no one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claims unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable up to unfathomable consmes. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of Divine Power’ which no authority on earth can enjoy.” The statutory duty enjoined upon the police officer on receipt of a complaint showing cognisable offences is to investigate in the circumscribed limites imposed on such on authority in the conduct of the investigation. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of Divine Power’ which no authority on earth can enjoy.” The statutory duty enjoined upon the police officer on receipt of a complaint showing cognisable offences is to investigate in the circumscribed limites imposed on such on authority in the conduct of the investigation. The further observation is as follows: “The core of Secs.156 , 157 and 159 of the Code is that if a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of a cognisable offence, he must either proceed with the investigation or cause an investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate; that in a case where the police officer sees no sufficient ground for investigation, he can dispense with the investigation he can altogether that the field of investigation of any cognisable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have control and have no power to stiff or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation and that it is only in a case wherein a police officer decides not to investigate an offence, the concerned Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation of in the alternative, if he thinks fit, he himself can, at once proceed or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into or otherwise to dispose of the case in the manner provided in the Code.” 6. Therefore, the above observation would make it clear that the field of investigation of any cognisable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating officers over which the courts cannot have control, so long as the investigation proceeds in accordance with the provisions relating to investigation. However, in a case wherein the investigating officer decides not to investigate the offence, the Magistrate as well as this Court can intervene to direct for such as investigation. Therefore, I am not able to court the preliminary objection raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in view of the above reasons. 7. The question now posed before this Court is, whether this is a fit case wherein this Court could give such a directione 8. Therefore, I am not able to court the preliminary objection raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in view of the above reasons. 7. The question now posed before this Court is, whether this is a fit case wherein this Court could give such a directione 8. At the out set, I must point out that both in the counter filed on behalf of the first and second respondent and in the counter filed by the third respondent it is stated that the complaint dated 18.3.1997 was also sent by the second respondent to the third respondent for investigation along with the investigation to be conducted in the cases registered as desired by the Lt.Governor, The third respondent also has made a specific, assertion in the counter that the investigation in all these cases is in progress, the allegations made by the petitioner Shri N.Valsaraj are so inter-connected and revolve round only one and the same issue, viz., whether the bribe was paid by the accused as alleged or note and that the present investigation would establish the real facts. Therefore, the complaint given by the petitioner dates 18.3.1997 is being investigated into by the third respondent in pursuance of the request made by the petitioner. 9. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint given by the petitioner making allegations against the Chief Minister, Home Minister and M.L.As., being a counter complaint should be registered and then to be investigated and that alone would satisfy the requirements of the relevant sections of Criminal Procedure Code. This, in my view, does not merit acceptance. The observations made in the following decisions would clarify the above aspect. 10. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , (1992)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 335 the Apex Court would observe thus: “Therefore, a police officer with whom an investigation of an offence under Sec.5(1)(e) of the Act is entrusted should not proceed with a preconceived idea of guilt of that person indicted with such offence” and subject him to any harassment and victimisation, because in case the allegations of illegal accumulation of wealth are found during the course of investigation as baseless, the harm done not only to that person but also to the office be held will be incalculable and inestimable. In this connection, it will be appropriate to recall the views expressed by Mitter, J. in P.Sirajuddin v. State of Madras P.Sirajuddin v. State of Madras , (1970)1 S.C.C. 595 in the following words: “Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious mindoment or misconduct of they type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against appears specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular “but to the department he belonged to, in general/ The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable.”Mudholkar, J. in a separate judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Singh Kishore Joshi State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Singh Kishore Joshi , (1964)3 SCR. 71 : 1964 Crl.L.J. 140 while agreeing with the conclusion of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) has expressed his opinion stating pages 86 and 87: “In the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I am of opinion that it is open to a police officer to make preliminary enquiries before registering an offence and making a full scale investigation into it.” We are in agreement with the views expressed by Mitter, J. and Mudholkar, J. in the above two decisions.” 11. In Madhuresh v. C.B.I. Madhuresh v. C.B.I. , 1997 Crl.L.J. 2820 the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court would hold thus: “Coming to the second contention, namely, as to whether the C.B.I, ought to have straightaway registered an F.I.R. before starting preliminary investigation, the petitioner's counsel submitted that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which permitted the police authorities to start preliminary investigation before registering an F.I.R. It was pointed out to the counsel that perhaps the correct approach to the problem was whether there was any prohibition in the code to start a preliminary investigation. Thus the latter approach is the correct one is clear from severed rulings of the Supreme Court, laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Singh Kishore Joshi State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Singh Kishore Joshi , (1964)3 S.C.R. 71 : 1964 Crl.L.J. 140, P.Sirajuddin and State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , (1992)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 335 the said rulings have been quoted in the earlier para. For the above reasons, we hold that the registration of an F.I.R., is not a condition precedent for conducting an preliminary investigation as distinct from a regular investigation. In fact, learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.N.Bhat stated that the nonregistration of on F.I.R., did not, as a fact come in the way of making on effective preliminary investigation and nobody has objected to the procedure adopted by the C.B.I.” 12. When the Home Department, Government of Pondicherry, on the direction of the Lt. Governor, itself requested C.B.I, to investigate into the complaints already registered along with the complaint given by the petitioner's party dated 18.3.1997 and especially when the third respondent, C.B.I, has asserted that the investigation is on with reference to the allegations petitioner's party and the prayer in the petition itself is for investigation, which is being done, I am not able to understand the logic behind the request made by the petitioner's counsel to register first and then to investigate. 13. As observed by the Apex Court, it is well within the powers of the C.B.I., to make a preliminary investigation and then to decide about the registration of the case. Further more, the issue raised in all the complaint given by both the parties is one end the same, which is the subject matter of investigation by the C.B.I. Therefore, the petition does not have any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.