ORDER : The sting operation conducted by the reporter of a television channel forms the basis for the registration of the case against the petitioners as Crime No.V.C.1/2019 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kasaragod Unit. 2. The petitioners are the third and the fourth accused in the case. At the time of the alleged incident, they were working as the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Office Attendant respectively at the R.T.O check post at Cheruvathoor. 3. The sting operation was conducted on 10.06.2018 and 11.06.2018. It is stated that such an operation was conducted with a view to expose the corruption among government officials in taking bribe for permitting vehicles to transport sand without actually verifying whether the vehicles have valid permit and other documents to transport sand. 4. The reporter of the television channel, disguised as the cleaner, travelled in a lorry. It is alleged that he gave money to various officials of the Motor Vehicles Department, Police Department and the Excise Department on the way from Manjeswaram to Cheruvathoor. The scenes of paying the money were recorded by a hidden camera held by the cameraman who was travelling with him. The television channel broadcast the scenes with a report. 5. The Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) ordered to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter. On the basis of the report of the preliminary enquiry which was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kannur, sanction was granted by the Government to register a vigilance case and to conduct investigation. Accordingly, the case was registered against the petitioners and four other government officials as Crime No.V.C.1/2019 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kasaragod Unit under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the first information report registered (Annexure-A1) against the petitioners. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions: (1) No search was conducted and no money was recovered. Therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioners will not stand against them. (2) The persons, who are seen in the video seized, could not be identified as it was recorded during night. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions: (1) No search was conducted and no money was recovered. Therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioners will not stand against them. (2) The persons, who are seen in the video seized, could not be identified as it was recorded during night. Registration of the first information report on the basis of the video is not legally sustainable. Such a video cannot be the sole basis for the prosecution against the petitioners. (3) The video seized is not admissible in evidence. 9. I find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. None of them constitutes sufficient ground for quashing the first information report. The case was registered against the petitioners and others not merely on the basis of the video clipping seized from the television channel or the reporter. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was revealed that there were sufficient materials disclosing commission of cognizable offences. The statement filed by the investigating officer reveals that the video has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The authenticity and reliability of the video clipping are yet to be ascertained. Admissibility of it in evidence is not a matter to be decided now. It is not a trap case. Seizure of the money has no significance in the case. It is possible to collect other evidence during the investigation of the case. The statement of the reporter, who has given the money, has been recorded. Whether his statement could be accepted as reliable or not is a matter which does not arise for consideration at this stage. The question whether any demand for money was made or not by the petitioners is a matter for investigation. 10. Registration of the first information report, on disclosure of commission of cognizable offences in the preliminary enquiry conducted by verification of the materials of the sting operation broadcast by the television channel, is legally sustainable. True, a sting operator stains his own hands by conducting the operation. Whether the sting operation was conducted really as a journalistic exercise with a view to expose corruption among public servants or whether the sting operator had any criminal intent is also a matter which requires investigation (See Rajat Prasad v. C.B.I : (2014) 6 SCC 495 ). 11. True, a sting operator stains his own hands by conducting the operation. Whether the sting operation was conducted really as a journalistic exercise with a view to expose corruption among public servants or whether the sting operator had any criminal intent is also a matter which requires investigation (See Rajat Prasad v. C.B.I : (2014) 6 SCC 495 ). 11. If the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie, disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code is not proper. It can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the first information report does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interest of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender would succeed in escaping from the consequences to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the first information report and the Court may in appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the other hand, the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of unnecessary harassment to an individual (See State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha : AIR 1982 SC 949 ). 12. The principles stated above have been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in Dineshbahai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2018 SC 314 ). 13. In the instant case, the allegations in the first information report disclose the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the first information report cannot be allowed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the investigating officer may be directed to complete the investigation and file final report immediately. Since the result of examination of the video clipping is awaited from the Forensic Science Laboratory, it is not expedient to fix a time limit for completing the investigation of the case. 15. Consequently, the prayer for quashing Annexure-A1 first information report is rejected. The investigating officer shall complete the investigation of the case as expeditiously as possible and file final report in the case. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the final report at the appropriate stage. It is clarified that this Court has not entered any finding on merits, either way, on the factual issues involved in the case. The Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations.