JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners Ram Jiwan Gupta Dy. Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Arjun Singh S.H.O., Police Station, Pindwara and Gottam Chand Sub Inspector, Police Station, Pindwara have invoked the Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road dated 18.2.2002 whereby the learned Judge while disposing the application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by one of the accused directed the State authorities to register a .case against them under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also to initiate departmental enquiry. 2. All the police officers were involved in instigation of the case of sexual exploitation of a minor aged 14 years namely Sonali by a Doctor and her disappearance with the help of co-accused nurse. The case as disclosed during the investigation is that, a widow named Smt. Kamla in order to earn livelihood for herself and two daughters used to work as a domestic servant at the residence of some of the officers of the Binani Cement Factory. Her younger daughter Sonali aged 14 years was also employed in the Binani Hospital. Dr. Ravi Kant during the period when his wife was out of station asked Sonali to visit his house for domestic work. She declined on the ground that she was having severe headache, but he persuaded to visit the house for taking medicine. At the residence she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. She was also threatened not to disclose this fact to any body else including her mother. The accused also gave currency note of Rs. 100/- to her. He threatened that if she disclose this fact to any body, he will discharge her mother and sister from service. Accordingly out of fear, she did not disclose the fact to anybody and remained at house for few days, but she reported bodily pain to her mother. After three days she was again called by the accused. He again committed rape on her. Subsequently she was directed to work at the house of Smt. Leena a Nurse in the Hospital. Apprehending that exposure of the crime at any time, the accused Dr. Ravi Kant with the help of co- accused Smt. Leena planned to send the prosecutrix out of the area. Mrs. He again committed rape on her. Subsequently she was directed to work at the house of Smt. Leena a Nurse in the Hospital. Apprehending that exposure of the crime at any time, the accused Dr. Ravi Kant with the help of co- accused Smt. Leena planned to send the prosecutrix out of the area. Mrs. Leena on some false pretext took her to Abu Road and boarded the train bound for Bombay. She offered Sonali some sweets and Bananas to eat. Thereafter she became unconscious and when gained consciousness, she found herself at Bombay Railway Station. She narrated the entire story to one woman Head Constable. Sonali was sent to Mahila Ashram. The Bombay Police sent a message to her mother. Thereafter mother along with her brother Prakash reached Bombay and brought her back. On the basis of the narration given by Sonali, Mst. Kamla lodged a F.I.R. at Police Station, Pindwara on 20.9.2000. After 21/2 months the police submitted an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara for recording the statement of Sonali under Section 164 CrP.C. the learned Magistrate fixed 4.12.2000. On the application a note was given by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to the effect that Sonali was under duress and as such her statement should not be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate at Mount Abu Mr. Hemant Jain without verifying if Sonal was free from any sort of pressure to give statement, recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. This fact has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in her order dated 17.1.2002. Thereafter on 3.5.2001 police submitted a final report. Sonali narrated the entire incident first time to a lady Head Constable at Bombay, but the police did not bothered to record her statement, before submitting F.R. Strangely after submitting F.R. Gottam Chand A.S.I. went to Bombay on 19.5.2001 to record statement of the said lady Head Constable. The learned Magistrate, Pindwara by order dated 27.11.2001 refused to accept the F.R. and took cognizance of the offence and registered a case against both the .accused persons i.e. Dr. Ravi Kant and smt. Leena for offence under Sections 376, 363, 365, 328 read with 109 and 120B I.P.C. A warrant of arrest was also issued against both the accused persons. It appears from the record that Dr. Ravi Kant is still absconding. Ravi Kant and smt. Leena for offence under Sections 376, 363, 365, 328 read with 109 and 120B I.P.C. A warrant of arrest was also issued against both the accused persons. It appears from the record that Dr. Ravi Kant is still absconding. Smt. Leena filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road while hearing the application under Section 483 Cr.PC. formed an opinion to the effect that unfair investigation was most tilted towards the accused persons. The applicants police officers have submitted a negative police report (FR.) under the influence of the accused persons. The learned Judge has catalogued circumstances leading to the said inference. After notice and hearing to the applicants police officers, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed the State authorities to register a case against all the three police officers under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also initiate a departmental enquiry against them. 4. It is contended by Mr. M.L. Garg learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction in directing to prosecute the petitioners under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act at the stage when the trial has not yet commenced. It is significant to notice that the F.I.R. was lodged on 20th September, 2000 at Police Station, Pindwara. The statement of the prosecutrix and the informant appears to have been recorded on the same day. The police did not bother to record statement of the lady Head Constable at Bombay. I have not been able to understand what was the occasion for the Police Officers to select the court at Abu Road after 21/2 months and to get the statement of Sonali recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. The way in which these officers conducted themselves leads to the inference of foul play on their part in the investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case the anguish expressed by the learned Additional Session Judge is quite natural. 5. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel that the impugned direction could be given only after a full inquiry. In the facts and circumstances of the case the anguish expressed by the learned Additional Session Judge is quite natural. 5. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel that the impugned direction could be given only after a full inquiry. If facts and circumstances disclose unfairness on the part of the investigation officers pointing towards unfairness more particularly corrupt practice the judicial conscience need not wait for giving an appropriate direction to secure the ends of justice till the conclusion of the trial. However, in the instant case though there is material on record pointing towards conduction on the part of the applicants police officers, but it is difficult to say anything about the corrupt motive. Thus, it will not be prudent to direct the appropriate authorities to register a case against the applicants under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The only direction can be given to the higher police authorities is to inquire the case against the applicants from the corruption angle as well.' As far as initiation of departmental enquiry is concerned, in my view, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Additional Session Judge. 6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.2.2002 is modified to the extent that the higher police authorities instead to straight away registering a case against the petitioners for offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 will further probe 'and if material is found, it will be open for them to register a case under the appropriate provisions of law. However, the direction with respect to holding of departmental enquiry for the misconduct on part of the applicants remains intact. The interim order dated 19.3.2002 is vacated. The record be returned forthwith. *******