JUDGMENT : The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) conducted an enquiry against Mr.Hamsa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thrissur Rural on the allegation that he had amassed assets, disproportionate to his income. On the basis of the facts revealed during the enquiry, on 09.07.2019, a case was registered against him as VC.01/19/SCE by the VACB, Special Cell, Ernakulam under Sections 13(1)(b) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The allegation against Mr.Hamsa, in Ext.P1 F.I.R registered in the above case is that, while working as a Government servant, during the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.09.2018, he has amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.28,78,399/-, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. 3. The fourth petitioner is the wife of Mr.Hamsa, the accused in the above case. The first petitioner is the brother and the third petitioner is the sister of the fourth petitioner. The second petitioner is a close relative of them. 4. The first respondent in this writ petition is the Director of VACB and the second respondent is the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell, Ernakulam. The third respondent is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is conducting the investigation in the above case. He is impleaded in this writ petition in his personal capacity. 5. The following are the reliefs sought in this writ petition. The third respondent is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is conducting the investigation in the above case. He is impleaded in this writ petition in his personal capacity. 5. The following are the reliefs sought in this writ petition. “i) Call for the entire records relating to the above case; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd respondent to peruse and verify Ext.P2 to P9 documents and afford an opportunity of hearing the petitioners herein, at the earliest and thereby release the property and building No.PM/36/87/2(a), to the 4th petitioner from the proceedings in V.C 1/19/SCE pending before the Vigilance Court and file a report before the Court.; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd respondent or anybody under him, other than 3rd respondent to personally conduct the investigation in VC 1/19/SCE with regard to the claim of petitioners relating to building No.PM/36/87/2(a), in which the search was conducted in V.C.No:1/19/SCE as to whether the same belonged to the 4th petitioner and she procured it by expending money obtained from her siblings and family members and thereby release the said property from the Vigilance Case No:1/19/SCE and file a report before the Court; iv) Grant such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble court feels just and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case, including the entire costs of the proceedings.” 6. The crux of the averments in the writ petition, which forms the basis for claiming the above reliefs, can be stated as follows: A land having an extent of nine cents was purchased in the name of the fourth petitioner in the year 2012. This property was purchased by spending Rs.6,45,000/-, including the registration charges. Thereafter, a house was constructed in this property by spending Rs.23,65,000/-. The total amount of Rs.30,10,000/-, which was spent for purchasing the land and for constructing the house, was legally obtained by the petitioners by various means. Sri.Hamsa, the accused in the case, who is the husband of the fourth petitioner, had not spent any amount for acquiring this property. However, the third respondent has refused to look into and consider the various documents relating to the purchase of land and the construction of the house in the name of the fourth petitioner. Sri.Hamsa, the accused in the case, who is the husband of the fourth petitioner, had not spent any amount for acquiring this property. However, the third respondent has refused to look into and consider the various documents relating to the purchase of land and the construction of the house in the name of the fourth petitioner. The third respondent is bent upon to file a charge-sheet against Sri.Hamsa by showing the above property as one acquired by him. 7. The third respondent has filed a statement of facts in reply to the averments in the writ petition. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder statement. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. The petitioners have got no plea that any property owned by them has been proceeded against in connection with the investigation conducted in the case registered against Mr.Hamsa. No legal action has been taken against any property owned by the petitioners in connection with the investigation of that case. No such property is under attachment. There is also no obstruction caused to the petitioners for the enjoyment of any property. The petitioners are also not proceeded against in person in connection with the investigation of the case registered against Mr.Hamsa. In these circumstances, even if the entire allegations in the writ petition are accepted as correct, the petitioners have got no cause of action for seeking the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. 10. The investigation of the case is in progress. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer has to file final report in the competent court. Then, if it is a charge-sheet filed against Sri.Hamsa, alleging that the aforesaid property was acquired by him by using illegal money, he would get adequate opportunity at the appropriate stage to plead and prove that such allegation is not true. It is evident that the petitioners have filed this writ petition with a view to cause impediment in the investigation of the case against Sri.Hamsa. 11. Section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') empowers a police officer to conduct investigation into any cognizable offence. Section 2(h) of the Code defines "investigation" and it includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Section 2(h) of the Code defines "investigation" and it includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. It ends with the formation of the opinion as to, whether on the materials collected, there is a case to place the accused for trial before the competent court and if so, by taking necessary steps for the same by filing of a charge-sheet. 12. Investigation of the case registered against Sri.Hamsa is in progress. This is not the stage where the efficacy or sufficiency of the materials collected by the investigating officer can be evaluated. An accused can avail of such remedies as may be permissible in law before the jurisdictional courts at different stages during the investigation as well as at the time of the trial of the case. If there is no legal evidence against him, at the appropriate stage, he could opt for the remedy of seeking discharge or quashing of the charge-sheet. Sri.Hamsa, against whom the case is registered, has already filed application under Section 482 of the Code challenging the manner in which investigation is being conducted by the third respondent. 13. The cause of an affected accused cannot be agitated by next friends or close relatives unless the accused is incapacitated to take recourse to legal remedy (See Romila Thapar v. Union of India : AIR 2018 SC 4683 ). 14. In Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary : (1991) 3 SCC 756 , the Apex Court has observed as follows: “Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties ........ “. 15. It is for the investigating agency to submit final report in the court concerned after full and complete investigation. The investigating agency may submit a report finding the allegations substantiated. It is also open to the investigating agency to submit a report finding no material to support the allegations made in the first information report. “. 15. It is for the investigating agency to submit final report in the court concerned after full and complete investigation. The investigating agency may submit a report finding the allegations substantiated. It is also open to the investigating agency to submit a report finding no material to support the allegations made in the first information report. When the investigation is in progress, it is not for this Court to comment on the tentative view of the investigating agency. 16. The investigation of an offence is the domain of the police. The power to investigate into cognizable offences by a police officer is ordinarily not impinged by any fetters. The manner and the method of conducting the investigation are left entirely to the investigating officer. As far as the steps taken by the investigating officer are legal and proper, the Court has no power to interfere with the same. The formation of the opinion, whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to the competent court or not, as contemplated by Sections 169 and 170 of the Code, is to be that of the investigating officer. The investigation under the Code, takes in several aspects and stages, ending ultimately with the formation of an opinion by the police as to whether or not, on the materials collected, a case is made out to send the accused for trial before the competent court. The submission of the final report is dependent on the nature of the opinion so formed. The formation of the said opinion, which is the final step in the investigation, is to be taken only by the investigating officer and by no other authority. 17. In State of Bihar v. J.A.C Saldanha : AIR 1980 SC 326 , the Apex Court has held as follows: "There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court, the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate”. 18. This Court cannot issue directions to the investigating officer to investigate the case from a particular angle. It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed. The High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the investigating agency to investigate the case in accordance with the views of the Court (See D.Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari : (2009) 10 SCC 488 ). 19. The investigating officer is not obliged to anticipate all possible defences and investigate in that angle (See V.K.Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand : AIR 2015 SC 3043 ). If the investigating officer, during the investigation, omits to take into consideration any document in favour of the accused, the accused can produce or summon those documents in the trial court and prove them to establish his innocence. 20. The reliefs sought in the writ petition impliedly include a change of the investigating officer. 21. If the investigating officer, during the investigation, omits to take into consideration any document in favour of the accused, the accused can produce or summon those documents in the trial court and prove them to establish his innocence. 20. The reliefs sought in the writ petition impliedly include a change of the investigating officer. 21. Ordinarily, an accused has no right to seek change of investigating officer (See Visakhmon v. Director General of Police : 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2150). If that be the legal position, the petitioners, who are close relatives of the accused and who are third parties, cannot be heard to say that the case shall be investigated by an officer of their choice other than the third respondent. 22. The petitioners have alleged that, Exts.P2 to P9 documents and the additional documents produced by them in the writ petition, would prove the innocence of the accused in the case but the third respondent refused to consider those documents. 23. In State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma : AIR 1991 SC 1260 , the Apex Court has held as follows: “As regards the investigating officer, he has wide powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. He has to perform his duties with the sole object of investigating the allegations and in the course of the investigation he has to take into consideration the relevant material whether against or in favour of the accused. Simply because the investigating officer, while acting bona fide, rules out certain documents as irrelevant, it is no ground to assume that he acted mala fide. The police report submitted by the investigating officer has to pass through the judicial scrutiny of a Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance. Although the accused person has no right to be heard at that stage but in case the accused person has any grouse against the investigating officer or with the method of investigation he can bring to the notice of the Magistrate his grievances which can be looked into by the Magistrate. When the police report under S.173, Cr.P.C. has to go through the judicial scrutiny it is not open to the High Court to find fault with the same on the ground that certain documents were not taken into consideration by the investigating officer. When the police report under S.173, Cr.P.C. has to go through the judicial scrutiny it is not open to the High Court to find fault with the same on the ground that certain documents were not taken into consideration by the investigating officer. We do not, therefore, agree with the High Court that the FIR and the investigation is vitiated because of the mala fide on the part of the informant and the investigating officer”. (emphasis supplied) 24. Therefore, even if it is accepted that the third respondent had refused to look into the documents produced by the petitioners, malice on his part cannot be assumed or inferred for that reason. 25. At this juncture, it is to be noted that, Mr.Hamsa, the accused in the case, has filed Crl.M.C.No.5275/2019 challenging the investigation being conducted by the third respondent. In Crl.M.C.No.5275/2019, he had filed an application as Crl.M.A.No.01/2020 for changing the investigating officer. After perusing the case diary, this Court had dismissed the aforesaid application on the finding that there is nothing apparent to indicate that the third respondent had any personal enmity towards the accused in the case. 26. In the aforesaid circumstances, the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted at the instance of the petitioners, who are third parties to the case registered by the VACB. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.