JUDGMENT 1. :- Madhukar Tandon, the petitioner, is a Senior member of the Indian Police Service and was, at the relevant time, posted as Deputy Inspector General, Police (Administration), Jaipur Rajasthan. He has his permanent residences at House No. A-752, Sector 19, NOIDA (U.P.) and at 4 Mal Avenue, Lucknow (UP). 2. Khyali Ram, Resp. No.2, is a constable in the Police Force of the State of Rajasthan. He stood attached as an orderly with the petitioner since 1994. He is a member of Scheduled Tribe. He has a wife, Smt. Urmila alias Malli and two School-going children. Whereas Khayali Ram accompanied the petitioner at Jaipur, Kanpur, Noida and other places wherever the petitioner used to go on duty or on leave, his wife and children reside in the upper portion of petitioners house at NOIDA as both the children of Khayali Ram Constable were getting education in ACEM Public School, NOIDA in LKG and UKG. It is alleged that though married on 7.2.84 at Kanpur with Sint. Svetlana and having got a son, Chiranjiv Aryaman, now aged about 9, 10 years, the petitioner could not maintain harmonious relations with his wife and child leading Smt. Svetlana to seek dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner by filing a petition before the Family Court at Kanpur (Suit No. 645 of 1993). Reportedly the marriage has since been dissolved. In view of such troubled matrimonial life the petitioner is alleged to have induced his orderly, Khayali Ram, Resp. No. 2, to keep his wife Smt. Malli and his children, Mahesh and Sapna, at his house in NOIDA without any liability for rent. The petitioner is further alleged to have procured employment in some factories at Noida for two brothers of Khayali Ram, namely Budha Ram and Bhajan Lal. It is further alleged that the petitioner used to receive threatening calls on telephone from his growing son and, therefore, had asked Khayali Ram to commit murder of the son against payment of Rs. 5 Lakh. Apprehending that the petitioner may get his two brothers involved in some false case Khayali Ram asked his brothers to go to the village and stop working at the factory. His wife Smt. Malli and his two children were, however, still staying in the residence of the petitioner in No. 11 A for educational pursuits. 3. 5 Lakh. Apprehending that the petitioner may get his two brothers involved in some false case Khayali Ram asked his brothers to go to the village and stop working at the factory. His wife Smt. Malli and his two children were, however, still staying in the residence of the petitioner in No. 11 A for educational pursuits. 3. In the above background in is alleged that the petitioner went to his residence in Noida on 12.1.97 in day time and soon thereafter he left for Kathgodown where the petitioner is said to be having his farm-house. He returned therefrom in the night of 16.1.97 alongwith a young girl, aged 17-18 years (Km. Sushila) and two boys. They were made to stay in a flat in the residence. The petitioner consumed 2,3 pegs of drinks and asked Khayali Ram to put on his official dress. Khayali Ram asked for some money which he had allegedly incurred for the on behalf of the petitioner in his absence. The petitioner allegedly asked him to put on his dress and send his wife Smt. Malli to him so that he may give money to her. Smt. Malli went to the room of the petitioner. She was caught hold and the petitioner allegedly started committing rape on her. The cries raised by Smt. Malli attracted Khayali Ram and he reached the room of the petitioner and rescued his wife after some scuffle. The petitioner got Khayali Ram locked in a room. Smt. Malli was also confined in another. In following night Smt. Malli was brought to petitioner's room and was allegedly raped. Some obscene photographs are also alleged to have been taken. On 18.1.97 the belongings of Khayali Ram were thrown out of the room occupied by him and he took them away but he was not allegedly allowed to meet his wife, who is said to have been confined in a room. On 19.1.97 the petitioner left for Jaipur. The boys and the girl allegedly kept watch on Smt. Malli. She is alleged to have, anyhow, managed to escape therefrom alongwith her children in the early hours of 25.1.97 and reached Bikaner House at Delhi wherefrom she reached Jaipur Police lines where Khayali Ram was posted. On 19.1.97 the petitioner left for Jaipur. The boys and the girl allegedly kept watch on Smt. Malli. She is alleged to have, anyhow, managed to escape therefrom alongwith her children in the early hours of 25.1.97 and reached Bikaner House at Delhi wherefrom she reached Jaipur Police lines where Khayali Ram was posted. Khayali Ram managed to keep his wife and children at the room of one Johri Lal and then sent them to his village Ram Bas under Bandikui Police Station. In the night of February 1, 1997 the petitioner is alleged to have reached village Ram Bas in a private white ambassador Car and induced Smt. Malli and her children to accompany him as the life of her husband was in danger. She accompanied him. The petitioner took her to his residence in NOIDA. In the night she was called by him to his room and was raped. In the morning the petitioner returned to Jaipur. On 3.2.97 Smt. Malli lodged a F.I.R. No. 83/97 with Police Station Noida where upon a case under section 366/376 Indian Penal Code was registered. Investigation in that case is reportedly being made by the police officials of Police Station NOIDA Distt. Ghaziabad (UP). 4. On 2.2.97 the brothers of Khayali Ram, Resp. No.2, reached Police Lines at Jaipur to know about him as they had been told by the petitioner in the night that Khayali Ram had met with accident. They informed Khayali Ram that the petitioner had taken his wife and children with him during the night. Khayali Ram reported the matter to the police officers at Police Station Bandikui on 4.2.97 whereupon Crime No. 68/97 was registered under section 363, 366, 376, 343 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989 and is being investigated by the Rajasthan Police. The petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 7.2.97 vide Govt. of Raj. Deptt. of Personnel (A-1) Order of the even date. During the meanwhile the petitioner unsuccessfully tried for release on anticipatory bail from the court of Session Judge at Dausa and this Court. Reportedly he is still at large and the investigation in the case against him by Rajasthan Police is in progress. 5. Mr. of Raj. Deptt. of Personnel (A-1) Order of the even date. During the meanwhile the petitioner unsuccessfully tried for release on anticipatory bail from the court of Session Judge at Dausa and this Court. Reportedly he is still at large and the investigation in the case against him by Rajasthan Police is in progress. 5. Mr. V.K. Shall, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that in respect of one and the same offence two separate First Information Reports, one at Police Station NOIDA and the other at Police Station Bandikui have been registered and were being investigated by the Police Officers of two States leading to avoidable harassment to the petitioner and, in a sense, infringing his fundamental right against double jeopardy guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The learned counsel submitted that the F.I.R. lodged with the officer in Charge at Police Station Noida (UP) was first in point of time and that only can be investigated and the subsequent F.I.R lodged by Khayali Ram with Officer in-charge at Police Station being later in point of time was required to be quashed. In this behalf Mr. Shall made reference to the provisions contained in section 177 Criminal Procedure Code and relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Ram Pratap V. State, AIR 1970 Rajasthan 250 . The argument advanced is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 6. section 177 Criminal Procedure Code contains the general rule of lex fori and speaks in terms of the common law of England that crimes are local and justiciable only by the courts within whose jurisdiction they are committed. A reading of other provision contained in Chapter XIII of the Criminal Procedure Code and following Section 177, clearly informs that Chapter XIII is intended to enlarge the scope of the suits in which the trial of an offence might be held and the inconvenience caused to an accused or prosecutor by a technical plea of want of territorial jurisdiction might be minimised. The use of the word "ordinarily" in the language of Section 177 itself suggests that exclusive jurisdiction upon a particular court at a particular place has not been conferred to the exclusion of other courts at other places. The use of the word "ordinarily" in the language of Section 177 itself suggests that exclusive jurisdiction upon a particular court at a particular place has not been conferred to the exclusion of other courts at other places. In fact the place of trial of an offence has been left open and is to be determined after taking into account the provisions contained in sections 178-185 following Section 177, and the circumstances attending upon the commission of offence or offences in a given case. Sections 178-185 provide for more extended jurisdiction to courts than is covered by the general rule contained in Section 177. Even Sections 218 to 223 read with Section 184 may be viewed at as providing exception to the general rule in Section 177. 7. Apart from the above legal position of Section 177, it is required to be kept in mind that Chapter XIII deals with jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. It does not relate to the power of Police to investigate the offences. Chapter XII deals with the subject of information to the police and their power to investigate. The Sine qua non for the commencement of investigation by the police into an offence as per provisions contained in Chapter XII Criminal Procedure Code is that there must be an information to them and that such information must disclose the commission of a cognisable offence. Therefore, if any information disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence is laid before an officer in-charge of a police station and such information satisfies the requirements of Section 154 and prima facie shows the commission of that offence within the area under his territorial jurisdiction there is no escape for the police officer except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form and to commence investigation into it, if such commencement of investigation is not controlled by any specific provision in a statute. The investigation of cognisable offence is in fact in the exclusive domain of the police and so long as such power is legitimately exercised by them in strict compliance with the relevant provisions contained in Chapter XII and the investigating officer does not transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly or illegally exercises his investigatory power jeopardising the guaranteed personal liberty of and peaceful enjoyment of an office or property by a citizen Courts would not be justified in interfering with and obliterating the track of investigations being legally and legitimately carried on by the police officer. Way back in Khawaja Nazir Ahmed's Case, AIR 1945 PC 18 it was observed by their Lordships of the Privy Counsel that the role of the police and the role of the courts are complementary to each other and both play their respective roles in the filed, assigned to them. The main object of investigation being to bring home the offence to the offender it is the essential part of the duties of the investigating officer to collected all relevant and material evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. In the Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 when the role of Police under Chapter XII comes to an end the role of the courts commences under Chapter XIV. 8. In the instant case the report lodged by Smt. Malli with the officer in Charge Police Station NOIDA (UP) on 3.2.97 in respect of rape committed on her by the petitioner during the nights of 16th and 17th of Feb. 1997 at his house in Noida and her and children's wrongful confinement by him there is no doubt first in point of time and the F.I.R. lodged by Khayali Ram, her husband, with officer in charge of Police Station Bandi Kui is later in point of time but it is not correct to say that the scope of investigation of the two F.I.Rs is also the same. Offences under section 376/343 Indian Penal Code where allegedly committed against Smt. Malli in the nights of 16th and 17th of Feb. 1997 at Noida within the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in charge Police Station NOIDA. Those offences were complete and not continuing offences. Offences under section 376/343 Indian Penal Code where allegedly committed against Smt. Malli in the nights of 16th and 17th of Feb. 1997 at Noida within the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in charge Police Station NOIDA. Those offences were complete and not continuing offences. Therefore, since the offences reported to him were cognisable offences the officer in charge Police Station NOIDA was well within his rights to commence investigation in the offences alleged to have been committed within his jurisdiction. But offences punishable under section 363 and 366 Indian Penal Code, reported to officer in charge Police Station Bandi Kui (Raj.) to have been committed at a place within his jurisdiction in the night of 1/2 of February 1997 were quite different separate from and independent of those committed at NOIDA. Once the Officer in charge Police Station Bandikui had received information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence within his territorial jurisdiction he was duty bound to register a case for such offences and until prohibited or restrained by any order or provision of a statute to commence investigation in the case. The investigating Officer of the case registered in Rajasthan can therefore not be accused of transgressing the circumscribed limits of or improperly and illegally exercising his investigatory powers and jeopardising the fundamental right to personal liberty or property of the petitioner. Article 20(2) has no direct bearing on the question at hand. Article 20(2) would stand attracted to the case of double punishments when a person had been previously punished in a previous proceedings. That is obviously not the position in the present case at this stage. 9. The decision of this court in the case of Ram Pratap (supra) lays down that when a girl kidnapped from one place is taken to and raped upon at a different place, it is a "transaction" within the meaning of section 235 Criminal Procedure Code. In that case Geeta, a minor girl, was kidnapped by Ram Prasad petitioner from Bhawani Mandi in Rajasthan on or about 13th March 1967 and taken to Indore in Madhya Pradesh where she was raped on or about 16th March 1967 in a hotel. When the Magistrate at Bhawani Mandi commenced inquiry in the case his jurisdiction to inquire into the offence was challenged. When the Magistrate at Bhawani Mandi commenced inquiry in the case his jurisdiction to inquire into the offence was challenged. In para 7 of the report Beri, J.(as his Lordship then was) observed that: "In the instant case, the inquiry in regard to the actions of the accused firstly relates to an offence which he is alleged to have committed under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code at point B (Bhawani Mandi), then he. and the girl proceeded to Indore (I) and it is alleged that they staved in a Hotel and the accused committed the offence of rape. The offences under section 366 and 376, in the circumstances of the case, it appears are so related to one another that their inquiry can be justified both under the provisions of section 180 Criminal Procedure Code as well as Section 177 read with the provisions under section 235." Referring to illustration (c) to Section 180 the learned Judge further observed that: "The essence of the provision, to my mind, is that where there are two acts done at two different places and each one of these acts is an independent offence but they are related to one another, both the offences can be enquired into or tried at either of the places." 10. With utmost respect to the learned Judge I fully subscribe to the views expressed by him. In the case before me too Smt. Malli was staying with her in-laws at village Ram Bas under Police Station Bandi Kui on 1.2.97 when the petitioner is stated to have reached there and induced her to go with him as her husband's life was in danger and then took her and her children to NOIDA and raped her there. The actions of the petitioner first relate to an offence of abduction and kidnapping alleged to have been committed by him within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bandi Kui. Investigation into the offences under section 366 and 367, 343 Indian Penal Code by the police officers in Rajasthan, in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held as unjustified. Investigation into the offences under section 366 and 367, 343 Indian Penal Code by the police officers in Rajasthan, in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held as unjustified. The offences committed on the night of 1/2.2.97 whether at Ram Bas or at Noida, which both were quite related to each other, were quite separate from and independent of those committed in the nights of 16th and 17th January 1997 at Noida and in which are being investigated into by the Police officers of Police Station NOIDA in U.P. There is no over-lapping of or duplicacy in the investigating of offences committed at two different points of time and places, by the police officers at two different places. No case of unjustified or un-warranted harassment to the petitioner by the continuance of the investigation into the offences alleged to have been committed by him at different points of time and different places, by different police personnel's at two different places is made out. It is altogether a different matter that if the investigations being carried on by the police of two different States into the actions alleged to have been committed by the petitioner terminate in submission of positive police reports under section 170/173 Criminal Procedure Code against him in courts situated at two different places, such cases may be directed to be tried by one and the same court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the convenience of both the parties. The question of joinder of charges in the two cases may then be considered by the trial court. But at this stage the right of Rajasthan Police to investigate the offences alleged to have been committed within the territorial limits of Rajasthan State cannot be denied and taken away. The objection raised by Mr. Shali thus has no merits at all and has to be rejected. 11. It was next urged by Mr. Shali that the F.I.R. lodged by Khayali Ram with Police Station Bandi Kui does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner either against him, his wife Smt. Malli or his children and the same was required to be cancelled and investigation quashed on that ground. 11. It was next urged by Mr. Shali that the F.I.R. lodged by Khayali Ram with Police Station Bandi Kui does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner either against him, his wife Smt. Malli or his children and the same was required to be cancelled and investigation quashed on that ground. The learned counsel further submitted that in any case the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner was the outcome of malice borne by Khayali Ram against the petitioner and investigation into such malicious F.I.R. by the Rajasthan Police is motivated by ill-will and ulterior motive on the part of certain Officer in the Rajasthan Police against the petitioner. In this behalf it was submitted that Khayali Ram wanted some field-posting for his benefit but the petitioner did not accede to his request and sent him to the police lines and therefore Khayali Ram managed to get a false case cooked up against the petitioner through his wife. It was further submitted by Mr. Shall that in view of a bright future ahead for the petitioner taking him to the top in the Police force of the State some officers in the Force felt jealous of him and therefore he has been framed in this false case. Mr. Shall in this behalf made reference to the principles of law laid down in the State of Haryana & Ors V. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 and State of Bihar V. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1260. The learned counsel for the Respondents rose as one man to oppose the argument of Mr. Shali. 12. The scope of the powers of this court to quash a F.I.R. or a complaint in their inception in exercise of its powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is by now well settled. It has been consistently and repeatedly laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the powers of this court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are extra-ordinary powers and should be sparingly exercised in rarest of rare cases only to prevent the abuse of the process of law/courts or to otherwise secure the ends of justice in a given case. If the contents of the F.I.R/ complaint disclose the commission of an offence and the allegations made against the accused are not absurd and inherently improbable and not tainted with malice or ulterior motive the F.I.R./Complaint should not be quashed and investigation/inquiry into the commission of the offence curbed and curtailed. Where the F.I.R/Complaint contains serious allegations and the same even if appear at that stage to have been laid on account of some personal enmity and such allegations are yet to be tested and weighed in the light of the' evidence to be collected, the F.I.R should not be cancelled and investigation quashed at that stage. (See the cases cited at Bar and State of Maharashtra V. Ishwar Peeraji Kalpat, (1996) 1 SCC 542 , State of H.P.V. Prithi Chand, (1996)2 SCC 37 , State of Orrissa V. Banshidhar Singh, (1996)2 SCC 194 and Rupan Deol Bajaj V. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 . 13. In the instant case it has been reported by Khayali Ram to the officer In-charge Police Station Bandi Kui on 4.2.97 that on information having received from his brothers he had come to know that the petitioner had induced his wife and children to go with him in an ambassador Car in the dead hours of night on the pretext that Khayali Ram had met with an accident whereas Khayali Ram had met with no accident. It was also stated in the FIR that he had already informed the D.I.G. Police of the incident. It was also stated in the FIR that he had already informed the D.I.G. Police of the incident. In view of the conduct of the petitioner of reaching the village of his Ex-orderly in the dead hours of night, inducing the wife of the orderly and his children to go with him on the false statement that the orderly had met with an accident and the conduct of Khayali Ram's brother in going to the Police lines at Jaipur in the following morning and Khayali Ram's conduct of informing his D.I.G. Police of the events taken place could have justified the action of the Officer In Charge Police Station Bandi Kui to register a case for offences under section 363, 366 Indian Penal Code which prima facie were disclosed by the contents of the F.I.R. It is true that the report lodged by Khyali Ram was based on information received by him from his brothers but since the information given by Khyali Ram to the Officer In Charge disclosed the commission of offences under section 363/366 Indian Penal Code in the facts and circumstances of the case or, at least, the Officer In charge could have reasons to suspect the commission of cognisable offence as required by Section 157(1), he could have subjectively satisfied himself of the sufficiency of the grounds for entering into investigation into such offences. The argument advanced by Mr. Shali is thus not correct and is rejected. 14. In so far as the question of malafides either on the part of Khayali Ram or junior or senior colleagues of the petitioner in the Police Force of Rajasthan State in initiating the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is concerned, I find absolutely no basis at all for taking such a view in the present case. Khayali Ram was admittedly the former orderly of the petitioner. In his petition the petitioner has stated that Khayali Ram had worked as his orderly till 20.1.96 on which date he was transferred and posted to the Police Lines Jaipur. It has further been averred in the petition that Khayali Ram's wife Smt. Urmila . Malli Meena alongwith her children Mahesh aged 8 years and Sapna aged 4 years were still residing there in the Barsati Room of the second floor in house No. A-752, Sector 19, NOIDA belogning to the petitioner. The accommodation had been provided free of charge of rent. Malli Meena alongwith her children Mahesh aged 8 years and Sapna aged 4 years were still residing there in the Barsati Room of the second floor in house No. A-752, Sector 19, NOIDA belogning to the petitioner. The accommodation had been provided free of charge of rent. Certain admission fee receipts were also filed to show that Khayali Ram's said children were getting education in the Public School in NOIDA. One of such receipts is dated 9.12.96. It is not proper on the part of this court to comment upon the relations which the parties appear to be maintaining even after transfer of Khayali Ram to Police Lines Jaipur on 20.1.96. Suffice it to say that at this stage of the proceedings it is incorrect to say that Khayali Ram had any motive to falsely accuse the petitioner on the ground that he was not given a lucrative field posting, as stated by the petitioner in the petition. There is no material at all to show that prior to the lodging of the F.I.R there was any enmity between the informant and the petitioner. 15. There is also no material on the record to show that any Police Officer, be he junior to the petitioner or senior to him, was enemical towards him so as to force or compel a subordinate employee to rise against his high superior officer to malign and assassinate his character as a man and an officer by involving his own wife and children. The question of malafide exercise of power by an authority against a person must attract the attention of this court as it is not only relevant but is also significant when criminal prosecutions are initiated on extraneous considerations and for unauthorised purposes. The dominant purpose of registering the case against the petitioner was to have the accusation made by Khayali Ram against him investigated into and not the character assassination of the petitioner and to harass or humiliate him or to mar his prospects to greater heights in his service. Categories (5) or (7) detailed in para No. 108 in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case(supra) or observations made in PP Sharma's case (supra), though those observations do not support Mr. Shah's contention, do not stand attracted to the facts in the instant case. This argument too is, therefore, rejected. 16. Mr. Categories (5) or (7) detailed in para No. 108 in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case(supra) or observations made in PP Sharma's case (supra), though those observations do not support Mr. Shah's contention, do not stand attracted to the facts in the instant case. This argument too is, therefore, rejected. 16. Mr. Shali laid much stress on the point that though Khayali Ram had allegedly reported the matter to the D.G.Police yet no preliminary inquiry was conducted by the head of the Police Force of the State though he was duty bound to have got such an inquiry conducted before registration of the case against a highly placed and responsible police officer coming from a well educated and well-placed, socially and economically, family, in conformity with the requirement of law, justice and fair play. It was pointed out that the petitioner was the son of senior retired I.A.S. officer and that his elder brother was also a senior member of the said service posted at Lucknow (UP). Mr. Shall emphasised that the petitioner occupied almost a top position in the Police Department of the State of Rajasthan and the allegations made against him were likely to do immense harm not only to his reputation as a high ranking police officer but also to the Police Department itself and adversely affect the morale of the members of the Force and therefore it was incumbent upon the Director General Police to make preliminary inquires into the allegations levelled against the petitioner before permitting the Officer In Charge of Police Station Bandi Kui to register the case and make investigations into the offences alleged to have been committed by him. In support of such contentions Mr. Shali relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh V. Bhagwat Kishore Joshi, (1964)3 SCR 71 : AIR 1964 Supreme Court 221 . and P. Sirajuddin V. State of Madras, (1970) 3 SCR 931 - AIR 1971 Supreme Court 520. 17. As stated above the investigation of a cognisable offence is within the exclusive domain of a police officer and he enjoys such unfettered powers so long as he exercises such powers in strict compliance with the relevant provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. He has a statutory power and right to investigate the cognisable offence suspected to have been committed by an accused and bring him to book. He has a statutory power and right to investigate the cognisable offence suspected to have been committed by an accused and bring him to book. The investigation made by him is, in fact, the foundation stone on which the very edifice of a criminal trial is built. He is therefore an arm of law and plays a pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of the law and order situation in the society, he himself is a part of. Therefore, enough power has been given to him in the area of investigatory process to make successful investigation as it is by his actions that law becomes an actual positive force and achievement of justice a reality. But if he transgresses the prescribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his powers in breach of statutory provisions, it may not only cause serious invasion into the very right of a citizen to live with dignity and honour and enjoy his property but also to the very concept of rule of law by which people are governed in any civilised and cultured society. 18. It is true that the officers of assured status and ranks in particular and the public servants in general must be protected against undue harassment and victimisation on vague or vexatious allegations to imbibe confidence in them to honestly and sincerely discharge their duties for the benefit of the people and to keep their moral high in rendering service to the fellow-citizens without fear and apprehension but such desired objective can make no legitimate foundation for the demand of absolute immunity from wrong, immoral or unlawful actions and the claim for unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable to unfathomable heights cannot be acceded to in the name of civility, rich and cultural progeny and preservation of high moral of a force. Recognition of such power would not only run contrary to the spirit of a democratic Constitution but would also tantamount to recognition of "Divine Power" on mortals. Wherever the Indian Legislature felt the desirability to provide protection to the Officers of the State of assured status and rank and/or other Public Servants against uncalled for harassment's and undeserved victimisation on the basis of vague and vexatious allegations it did not lag behind in making suitable statutory provisions in that behalf. 19. In both the cases relied upon by Mr. 19. In both the cases relied upon by Mr. Shali the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 were under study of the Apex Court. Section 5A of the said Act provided that "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under Sections 161, 165 or Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code or under section 5(2) of the Act without the order of the Presidency Magistrate of a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, and make any arrest therefor without warrant." In the case of Bhagwant Kishor Joshi the accused was a booking clerk at Saharanpur in the year 1955-56 and was alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 49/1/0. The case had however, been investigated by a Sub-Inspector, Mr. Mathur and not by an officer of the rank of Dy.S.P as required by Section 5A of the Act of 1947. In the case of P. Sirajuddin the accused was the Chief Engineer Highways and Rural Words, Madras. He was expected to be retained in service upto the age of 58 but one Rangaswami Nadar sent a petition to the Minister concerned against him. The Chief Minister had also received allegations about want of rectitude against the appellant. The Chief Minister asked Director General of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to make confidential enquiries into the allegations against the Chief Engineer. It was on such facts in the two cases that not only the desirability of conducting preliminary inquiry before initiating criminal proceeding against the public servants was pointed out but also strict compliance of the statutory provisions contained in Section 5A of Act of 1947 was stressed upon. But at the same time their Lordships observed that some irregularity or illegality in the matter of investigation, does not vitiate trial. No such facts are obtaining in the case before me. No provision like 5 A of the Act of 1947 stood there in the way of the Investigating Officer in the exercise of his powers under section 154/157 Criminal Procedure Code. No such facts are obtaining in the case before me. No provision like 5 A of the Act of 1947 stood there in the way of the Investigating Officer in the exercise of his powers under section 154/157 Criminal Procedure Code. Despite the petitioner remaining at large till now and having all the information's regarding his place of residence and his properties no steps to force his presence before him appear to have been taken by the Investigating Officer in the Case. That clearly reflects absence of ill-will, bias or malice on his part against the petitioner. 20. To sum up I find absolutely no case either to cancel the F.I.R. lodged with Officer In Charge of the Police Station Bandi Kui, Distt. Dausa (Raj) by Khayali Ram against the petitioner or even to stay the investigation therein. the petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed accordingly. 21. A copy of this order be sent to the D G.Police (Adm) Rajasthan, Jaipur for information and necessary action, if any.Petition Dismissed. *******