JUDGMENT : The seventh respondent Co-operative bank invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up 6 posts of appraisers and 5 posts of peons. A written examination was conducted on 12.11.2017. 99 candidates appeared in the written examination for the post of appraisers and 158 candidates for the post of peons. The written examination was conducted with the assistance of an outside agency called “Global Trust, Kottayam”. The maximum mark allotted for the written examination was 100. Short listed candidates were called for an interview. The mark allotted for the interview was 20. Petitioner was a candidate to the post of appraiser and being successful, he was called for the interview held on 25.11.2017. According to the petitioner, though he answered all the questions asked by the interview Board, he was ranked only 20th in the list. It was alleged that the answer papers of the written examination of those who had given bribe to the Directors were manipulated to ensure that they secure high marks in the written examination. It was further alleged that specific instructions were given to such candidates, to fill up only answers fully known to them. The left out answers were filled up after completion of examination with the help of Directors to ensure high marks for them. According to him, he had noticed few candidates including the son of a Bank Manager and the son of a local gold merchant spending time in the examination hall, without seriously answering the questions. They were also seen later at the time of interview. Few had informed him that they have been assured job. Later it was understood that the above referred persons were ranked top in the final list. It was alleged by the petitioner that the first 6 persons in the rank list were appointed to the post of appraiser by accepting Rs.30 to 35 lakhs as bribe. According to the petitioner, immediately after the interview, final list was published on the same day, and appointment orders were given to such candidates on the same day itself. 2. Alleging irregularities and manipulations in the above appointments, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the Vigilance Court, Thrissur. The court directed Dy.S.P to conduct a quick verification and to submit a report. The Dy.S.P, after conducting the preliminary investigation, submitted Ext.P3 report before the court. 2. Alleging irregularities and manipulations in the above appointments, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the Vigilance Court, Thrissur. The court directed Dy.S.P to conduct a quick verification and to submit a report. The Dy.S.P, after conducting the preliminary investigation, submitted Ext.P3 report before the court. It was stated that the enquiry did not reveal any irregularity, attracting offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted in a perfunctory manner, the officer did not verify the relevant records and failed to investigate the relevant facts. The conclusions were perverse, not supported by any evidence and inconsistent with the finding that the appointments were made to posts which were not legally available to the bank. Bank also ignored the conclusion arrived at by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Ext.P4 report, that appointments were made in a hasty and illegal manner. 3. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 report. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 Enquiry Report was not legally sustainable, not the outcome of a proper investigation and hence liable to be quashed. The request of the petitioner was to entrust the investigation with another senior officer of the Crime Branch. 4. Evidently, the allegations levelled by the petitioner is serious. The court below also felt that a quick verification was liable to be conducted and consequently the Dy.S.P was directed to conduct quick verification and to file report. Ext.P3 is the quick verification report which shows that 19 witnesses were questioned and their statements recorded. Out of it, 7 were the candidates who had applied and four among them had got selected. Apart from them, the complainant, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society who conducted a departmental enquiry, two Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies, the General Manager in charge of the Bank and a former Director of the Bank were questioned. The crux of the findings of the Dy.S.P are as follows: (a) Conduct of examination was entrusted to an outside agency as per communication of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Examination was conducted by the agency. Question papers were received in sealed condition before examination. None of the Bank officials were present in the examination hall. After examination, false numbers were assigned by the Bank and thereafter valuation was got done by the agency. Examination was conducted by the agency. Question papers were received in sealed condition before examination. None of the Bank officials were present in the examination hall. After examination, false numbers were assigned by the Bank and thereafter valuation was got done by the agency. After evaluation, false numbers of candidates who had secured more than 40% marks were communicated to the Bank. Answer sheets entrusted to the bank after evaluation were found intact without any tampering. Hence the exams were conducted properly. (b) Answer sheets of two successful candidates against whom specific allegations were made were identified. They were asked to write on a separate paper, selected portions of answers which they had already written in the answer sheets. Two other candidates who got selected to the post of peons were also similarly asked to re-write on separate answer papers, selected portions of answers from their answer sheets. According to the Investigation Officer, comparison of the original answer sheets and the written portions showed that they were similar and there was no indication of any tampering of the original answer sheet. (c) In the light of allegation that one Arun, son of a former General Manager-in-charge got appointment misusing his father's connection, the call details of the telephones of the General Manager who was in charge at the time of appointments, were verified. It did not show any call to the phone of said Arun. Though two outgoing calls from the mobile of the General Manager to the mobile of other two selected candidates were seen, it was explained by the General Manager that since he was directed by the Bank to ensure that the selected candidates should join on 27th, some candidates were telephonically informed to join at the earliest. (d) The bank details of all the respondents in Ext.P2 were verified. There was nothing to indicate doubtful deposits of huge amounts in their accounts. There was no material to substantiate the allegations that the huge amounts were paid as bribe. 5. On the basis of the above findings, the Dy.S.P reported that there was nothing warranting a detailed investigation. However, it was noticed that certain appointments were irregular, as noticed by the officials of the Co-operative department for which, he recommended action under the Co-operative Societies Act by Joint Registrar (Reg). 6. These findings and the conclusions are assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. However, it was noticed that certain appointments were irregular, as noticed by the officials of the Co-operative department for which, he recommended action under the Co-operative Societies Act by Joint Registrar (Reg). 6. These findings and the conclusions are assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. The crux of the contention was that the investigation officer did not address himself the basic allegation and did not enquire into the essential facts. The officer proceeded on a tangent and arrived at wrong conclusions, it was contended. 7. The materials on record reveal that after the interview on 25.11.2017, rank list was published on same day and candidates were directed to join on 27th, which was the next working day. It also seems that the candidates were telephonically informed to join. The reason for the undue haste in conducting the interview, publication of rank list and informing the candidates to urgently join was neither enquired into nor explained by the witnesses who were questioned. 8. The materials also reveal that though the conduct of examination was entrusted to an outside agency, the Bank, after the examination, assigned false numbers. Thereafter the answer papers were returned by the Bank to the agency. It indicates that after the examination, the answer papers were with the bank at least for some time. The date on which they were returned to the agency is not clear from the report. Evidently, there was no explanation as to why answer sheets were collected by the bank and why they retained the right to assign false number on the answer sheets. This cast serious doubt on the secrecy of the examination. 9. The main allegation raised by the petitioner was that after the examination was over, few candidates who had paid bribes, were permitted to incorporate correct answers in their answer sheets, which were consciously left blank. It is evident that the investigation officer did not correctly understand the crux of this allegation. Essentially, the allegation was that the answers were filled up by the candidates themselves after the examination, with the help of few Directors of Bank. Necessarily, the entire answer sheets were in the handwriting of candidates themselves. Hence the process undertaken by the investigation officer requiring the selected candidates to write some of the answers on another paper and in comparing it with the answer sheet was an unnecessary exercise. Necessarily, the entire answer sheets were in the handwriting of candidates themselves. Hence the process undertaken by the investigation officer requiring the selected candidates to write some of the answers on another paper and in comparing it with the answer sheet was an unnecessary exercise. The attempt should have been to ascertain whether some of the answers were filled up later by the selected candidates themselves. No such attempt was done by the investigation officer. 10. In the above background, the retention of the answer papers by the bank for assigning false numbers have to be appreciated in the nature of this allegations. In the above circumstances, conclusions of the investigation officer that examination was done ensuring secrecy, that none of the bank officers were present in the examination hall, that the question papers reached the examination hall in sealed condition and that after evaluation, the answer sheets reached Bank in sealed condition etc., are inconsequential. Once it is found that, after examination, the answer papers were in the custody of the bank, at least for some time, the allegation that some candidates had filled up their answer papers after the examination could be displaced only by completely ruling out the possibility of tampering or interpolation in the meanwhile. It was not done by the officer who conducted enquiry. 11. To rule out the allegations regarding Arun, the son of the former manager in charge, the telephone details of Manager in charge during the time of appointment were verified. The attempt of the investigation officer, was to verify whether the manager -in charge had called Arun or his father. That attempt was also without any significance, since the father of the above candidate being a former manager in charge of the bank, must be personally known to all the officers of the bank and if at all he wanted to influence them, he could, reasonably be expected to have contacted them personally. It is also reasonable to presume that no reasonably prudent man will discuss such matters over telephone and is more likely to personally discuss with the concerned persons. Hence the finding that no suspicious phone calls were made by the Manager in charge during the time of appointment may not be of much consequence and is not sufficient to prima facie rule out the allegations of the petitioner. Hence the finding that no suspicious phone calls were made by the Manager in charge during the time of appointment may not be of much consequence and is not sufficient to prima facie rule out the allegations of the petitioner. Equally unsustainable is the conclusion based on the enquiry conducted regarding the bank details of the concerned persons. It cannot presumed that any reasonably prudent person will deposit the illegally received money, if any, in his bank account. 12. The above discussion leads to a conclusion that the prima facie findings of the Investigation Officer and his conclusions are absolutely unsustainable and does not stand to reason. Evidently the Officer, misdirected himself and did not conduct enquiry into the real issues that ought to have been probed. Necessarily, Ext.P3 report cannot be sustained and cannot be considered as one satisfying the test of a quick verification report. 13. In the light of the above, the consequential question that arises is whether the court is competent and if so, whether court will be justified, in interfering at this stage. Normal consequence of filing such a Quick Verification Report will trigger the jurisdiction of the court below to consider the report and to decide whether to accept the report and to proceed forward or not. When the jurisdictional court is called upon to exercise that discretion, will this court be competent and justified in interfering with such a jurisdiction?. Definitely, the conundrum that arises in such a situation needs to be addressed. If the court accepts the report, necessarily that will foreclose the remedy of the petitioner as far as that court is considered. However, if the court rejects the report and directs the same officer to conduct further investigation, it is likely to be a futile exercise in the light of the nature of investigation already undertaken and in the light of the specific allegation that the investigation was done in a perfunctory manner. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court will be justified in interfering in exceptional circumstances, essentially because, the process of quick verification is a judicially evolved process and not specifically authorised by any provision of the statute. 14. The necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry before a public servant is charged with acts of dishonesty was expressed by the Supreme Court in P.Sirajjuddin and Others Vs. 14. The necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry before a public servant is charged with acts of dishonesty was expressed by the Supreme Court in P.Sirajjuddin and Others Vs. State of Madras and Others (1970 KHC 428, at para 17). It was observed that before a public servant, whatever be his status, was publicly charged with acts of dishonesty, which amounts to serious misdemeanuor or misconduct and FIR is registered, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations, by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, especially a person, who holds a top position in department even if baseless, would do incalculable harm, not only to the officer in particular, but to the department he belonged to, in general. Supreme Court proceeded to hold that when such an enquiry was held for the purpose of finding out whether criminal proceedings are to be resorted to, the scope thereof must be limited to the examination of persons who have knowledge of the affairs of the delinquent officer and the documents bearing on the same to find out whether there was prima facie evidence of guilt of the officer (emphasis supplied). Thereafter ordinary law of the land, must take its course and further enquiry be proceeded with, in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by lodging an First Information Report. 15. Though the reason or justification for conducting a preliminary enquiry by the investigating agency, deviating from the strict rigour of registration of First Information Report and the next stage of launching investigation under Section 154 and 157 Cr.P.C is not explained in detail in the above decision, it is clear that the object of the enquiry was for a preliminary satisfaction about the existence of a prima facie case, and to insulate the administrative mechanism, from unwarranted intrusion into the independent and bold decision making process, by raising false and frivolous complaints by disgruntled persons. A strong, independent and efficient decision making process by the executive is the hallmark of any democratic system of government and honest and courageous officers are liable to be protected against unwarranted, frivolous complaints. This seems to be the rationale, which prompted to the Supreme Court to make the above observation. This also seems to be the safety valve provided by the Supreme Court, considering the need. 16. This seems to be the rationale, which prompted to the Supreme Court to make the above observation. This also seems to be the safety valve provided by the Supreme Court, considering the need. 16. Even before Sirajuddin's case, the possibility of conducting a preliminary enquiry before registering a crime and making a full scale investigation into it, was expressed by the Supreme Court in State of UP Vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi ( AIR 1964 SC 221 ), though in a different context, when the information was from an anonymous source or a source of doubtful credibility. This was justified on the ground of absence of any prohibition, express or implied, in the Code. However, it was also clarified that such a preliminary enquiry should not amount to collection of evidence and so cannot be regarded as investigation (emphasis supplied). 17. The above view and the view expressed in Sirajuddin's case, (supra) with reference to public servants were approved and reiterated in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 694, at para 80). This was again reiterated in State of Bihar Vs P.P.Sharma (1992 Supp (1) SCC 222), Navin Chandra N Majitha Vs State of Meghalaya [ (2000) 8 SCC 323 at para 14)] and in Asok Tshering Bhutia Vs State of Sikkim (2011) 4 SCC 402 . 18. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs Government of UP ( AIR 2014 (SC) 187 ) had occasion to consider the question whether a police officer was bound to register a First Information Report upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or whether he enjoyed a discretion to conduct a preliminary enquiry in order to test the veracity of such information, before registering the same. After a detailed evaluation of precedents on the subject, the Bench held that in terms of the language issued in Section 154 of Cr.P.C, the police was bound to proceed to conduct investigation on receipt of information about commission of a cognizable offence. However, it was held that if the information received does not disclose cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. However, it was held that if the information received does not disclose cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. It was clarified that the scope of that preliminary enquiry was not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, but only to ascertain whether the information relates to any cognizable offence. Though the Supreme Court, in unequivocal terms held that S.154 Cr.P.C. postulates mandatory registration of First Information Report on receipt of information of a cognizable offence, yet, it was felt that there may be instances where preliminary enquiry may be required owing to the “change in genesis and novelty of crimes with passage of time”. Supreme Court carved out the category of cases in which preliminary enquiry may be made, which included, inter alia, corruption cases against public servants. 19. It is evident that in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the court on the subject, a preliminary enquiry is possible in corruption cases before Registration of the First Information Report. This safety valve has now been statutorily incorporated in Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 by amendment and also fixing a time limit for completion of enquiry. The process of conducting a preliminary enquiry has the sanction of law and is liable to be followed. This essentially raises two issues: (a) The extent of enquiry that can be conducted by the investigation and the time limit for completing the enquiry. (b) Whether such an enquiry is mandatory in every corruption case. This assumes significance in the light of the fact that in several cases it is now seen that under the guise of a preliminary enquiry, extensive and elaborate enquiry is conducted and the investigation, entending to several months and even years. 20. The genesis of the mechanism of preliminary enquiry or quick verification, as revealed from the above case laws, clearly show that the object of the preliminary enquiry was to verify at least prima facie, the correctness, veracity and genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint, and not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received. 20. The genesis of the mechanism of preliminary enquiry or quick verification, as revealed from the above case laws, clearly show that the object of the preliminary enquiry was to verify at least prima facie, the correctness, veracity and genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint, and not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received. Criticism raised against the above process is that at least in certain cases, preliminary enquiry do take the form of a mini investigation, during the course of which statements of witnesses are recorded and documents or their certified copies are signed, consuming the precious time and energy of the police officer concerned. The possibility of a defence lawyer requesting for such statements, which can be used for contradiction as well as corroborate, in the absence of the bar under Section 162 Cr.P.C has also been pointed out. 21. The judicial precedents referred to above, commencing from Sirajuddin's case to Lalitha Kumari's case consistently hold the view that once a cognizable offence is made out, the SHO is bound to register the FIR and to set investigation process in motion. From this mandatory rule, certain exceptions were carved out, due to special reasons, by virtue of the nature of allegations or the sensitive nature of public post held by the person against whom such allegations are made, or such other justifiable reasons or due to “change in genesis and novelty of crimes with passage of time”, as held in Lalitha Kumari's case. It was designed to rule out, even the remote possibility of misuse of the investigative mechanism. That being the justification for such a conscious exemption granted to some category of cases, it cannot exceed the scope laid down by the decisions, and shall not constitute a detailed enquiry or a mini investigation. The law, as affirmed in Lalitha Kumari's case is in addition to, and are supplementary to the other safeguards inherently contemplated under the Cr.P.C. 22. In Lalitha Kumari's case, it was specifically clarified that the scope of preliminary enquiry was only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence and not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received. The duty conferred under S.154 of Cr.P.C on a police officer was to satisfy himself that the FIR reveals a cognizable offence. In Lalitha Kumari's case, it was specifically clarified that the scope of preliminary enquiry was only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence and not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received. The duty conferred under S.154 of Cr.P.C on a police officer was to satisfy himself that the FIR reveals a cognizable offence. In such circumstances, law cannot authorise a police officer to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, which calls for a detailed enquiry into the truth of the allegations. This exceeds the scope of a preliminary enquiry and transgresses into the realms of a detailed investigation, which is neither contemplated not permitted. 23. It is true that at least in few cases, under the guise of preliminary enquiry, prolonged and detailed enquiry are undertaken. As the name suggests, the enquiry shall be a preliminary one to ascertain from the available materials, whether the existence of a prima facie case is established. If statements are recorded, the possibility of the accused requiring a copy of it, claiming it to be previous statements cannot be ruled out. However, such statements, being not one recorded under Section 162 of Cr.P.C, are not liable to be furnished. A long drawn detailed enquiry is not only contrary to the above judicial pronouncements, but, at least in some cases may be counter productive and may even defeat the very purpose of a preliminary enquiry. Under no circumstance can the enquiry exceed the permitted period. The court which direct a preliminary enquiry is under an obligation to direct the concerned officer to file the report within the prescribed period. Constitutional courts are also empowered to interfere in appropriate cases and pass orders directing the enquiring officer to complete the preliminary enquiry within the stipulated time. The very fact that a preliminary observation arrived at by the officer that the matter needs a detailed investigation itself may indicate the existence of a prima facie case. 24. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Sangara Vs. M.R.Hiremath (Crl Appeal No.819/2019), Supreme Court considered the nature of preliminary enquiry as held in Lalitha Kumari's case. It was held that it was to ascertain, in the course of preliminary enquiry, whether the information which was furnished would form the basis of lodging an FIR. 24. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Sangara Vs. M.R.Hiremath (Crl Appeal No.819/2019), Supreme Court considered the nature of preliminary enquiry as held in Lalitha Kumari's case. It was held that it was to ascertain, in the course of preliminary enquiry, whether the information which was furnished would form the basis of lodging an FIR. The bench held that preliminary enquiry was not mandatory in all corruption cases and a formal or informal information disclosing a cognizable offence will be sufficient to initiate prosecution. It also held that there was no set formality or manner in which a preliminary enquiry was to be conducted. The scope and ambit of such a probe, being necessary before lodging an FIR would depend upon the facts of each case. The object of such a probe was only to ensure that a criminal investigation was not initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. 25. Supreme Court in above decision, held that preliminary enquiry as held in Lalitha Kumari's case, was not to be conducted in every corruption cases. The type of enquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such enquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording was sufficient. It was held that it was only to avoid an abuse of process of law, rather than vesting any right in favour of an accused. Thus the purpose of a preliminary enquiry was to weed out wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, as a retaliation for acting fairly and objectively. 26. In the light of the above legal propositions, it is clear that the preliminary report is meant only for a limited purpose. In the background of Lalitha Kumari's case, when a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C, is received by the Special Judge constituted under the P.C Act, he has the discretion to order preliminary enquiry before proceeding on the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or under Section 200 Cr.P.C, unless the court rejects the complaint at the threshold, finding that the complaint is baseless or frivolous. If the report of preliminary enquiry discloses prima facie existence of a cognizable offence, the court can proceed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, if the report is not in favour of the complainant, still the court is not bound to accept it. If the court feels that the report is insufficient, incomplete or enquiry was completely misdirected, still the court can order further enquiry to be conducted with or without giving general directions at the same time ensuring that the entire process is not completed within a reasonable time limit. However, these principles would come into play only in the cases prior to Sec.17A of the PC Act. In the case at hand, special court is yet to apply its mind, and to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. It is in this back ground the respondents raised a contention that the Writ Petition is premature and this court cannot interdict the court below from exercising its discretion. 27. To answer the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and others (2008 (2) KHC 13), Ramakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala (1998 KHC 12), Kedar Narayan Parida and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Another (2009 KHC 5066), Kunga Nima Lipcha and Others Vs. State of Sikkim ( AIR 2010 SC 1671 ), Sasikala V.K. Vs State represented by Superintendent of Police (2012 KHC 4538), Ramdas Food Products Private Ltd Vs State of Gujarat Laws (SCC 2015 (6) 439), Dharam Pal Vs State of Haryana and Others (2016 KHC 6123), Santy George Vs. State of Kerala and Another ( 2016 (3) KHC 400 ), Pooja Pal Vs Union of India and Others (2016 KHC 6062), Manoj Abraham Vs P.P.Chandrasekharan Nair and Another ( 2017 (3) KHC 983 ), Ajay Hasia Vs Khauid Mujib ( AIR 1981 (SC) 487 ) and Maharashtra Chess Association Vs. Union of India Laws (SC) 2019 (7) 123, to contend that courts have wide powers to ensure proper investigation. Essentially the above decisions deal with the general powers of court regarding investigation. In Sakiri Vasu's case, it was held that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has an implied power to hold proper investigation and to take all wide steps to ensure proper investigation. Essentially the above decisions deal with the general powers of court regarding investigation. In Sakiri Vasu's case, it was held that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has an implied power to hold proper investigation and to take all wide steps to ensure proper investigation. In Kedar Narayan Parida's case (supra), pending investigation, the wife of the victim wrote to the High Court complaining that main accused have not been arrested and requesting the High Court to direct police to take effective action. Accepting the contention of the wife, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though normally the courts will not interfere in the investigation, where any illegality and/or malafide action on the part of investigating agency, either on its own or at the behest of the interested party is brought to the notice of High Courts, they in exercise of inherent and plenary powers are entitled to intervene to set right, the illegality or malafide action on the part of investigating authorities. In Dharam Pal's case (supra) the question arose whether investigation can be handed over to the CBI even after commencement of trial. Supreme Court answered that the stage of the case, cannot be the governing factor and the concept of fair investigation and fair trial has to be given primacy. Widening the horizon of the concept, the Supreme Court held that impartial and truthful investigation was imperative. The court has a basic duty to uphold truth and to ensure a real and fair investigation. The pro active role of court in ensuring proper investigation by ordering fresh investigation or further investigation or re-investigation was highlighted in Pooja Pal's case. In Ajay Hasia's case (supra) Supreme Court interfered in the selection of candidates to an Engineering College, inter alia, on a finding that the oral interview of each candidate lasted only for 2-3 minutes and the interview was a farce. 28. Though the above decisions were rendered in the background of powers of Constitutional courts and Magistrate Courts in the context of investigation, nonetheless, I feel that the principle can be adopted in the present case also. 29. A recapitulation of the entire case Laws lead to the following settled principles other than covered by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 29. A recapitulation of the entire case Laws lead to the following settled principles other than covered by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (A) When a complaint is received by the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it has the discretion to order preliminary enquiry before proceeding on the complaint under S.156(3) Cr.P.C or under S.200 of Cr.P.C unless the court rejects the complaint at the threshold finding that complaint is frivolous or baseless. (B) Preliminary enquiry is not be conducted in every case. Courts should not mechanically and without properly appreciating the nature of complaint, order preliminary enquiry. If the court is prima facie satisfied from the materials placed, that elements of prima facie case are available, it shall proceed in accordance with law without calling for a preliminary report. (C) The purpose of preliminary enquiry is only to weed out, wholly frivolous and motivated complaints and to avoid abuse of process of law. (D) There are no parameters on which enquiry can be conducted. Any informal or formal collection of information disclosing commission of cognizable offence will be sufficient. (E) Enquiring officer should bear in mind that enquiry is only preliminary in nature and should not be analysed to the level of a detailed enquiry or mini enquiry. The officer should refrain from recording statement of all persons conversant with the allegation and marking of documents. (F) The enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within the stipulated time. 30. Considering the entire facts, it is clear that the impugned report in this case is not legally sustainable. This court has ample power to interfere in appropriate cases, though invariably this court should not interfere into the discretion yet to be exercised by the Special Judge. However, in the peculiar situation arising in this case, Ext.P3 report will stand rejected. The second respondent shall direct another Dy.S.P to conduct a preliminary enquiry, strictly confined to the contours of a preliminary enquiry as laid down by Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case. The officer shall refer to the observations made in paras 4 to 11 of this judgment. Preliminary enquiry shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of taking charge by the officer. Writ Petition is allowed as above.