By challenging the FIR in VC No.1/1999 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Kozhikode, the petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the investigation was over and final report has been filed. The court below has taken cognizance of the offences, and issued process. Subsequently, the petitioner has amended the writ petition for getting the final report and further proceedings in the matter quashed.

2. The petitioner has already been retired from service as Deputy Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. The allegations were raised against him through Ext.P1 complaint as well as Ext.P3 complaint for the period in which he was working as Executive Engineer, Roads Division, Kozhikode.

3. Initially, Ext.P1 complaint dated 22.04.1994 was preferred before the Governor of Kerala by one P.Jayarajan alleging criminal misconduct and amassment of wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner. The said complaint was referred to the VACB. The VACB conducted a quick verification and submitted Ext.P7 quick verification report before the government. Through Ext.P7, it was reported that the enquiry disclosed that the allegation of amassment of wealth was unsubstantiated. The government has accepted Ext.P7 through Ext.P2 order. In Ext.P2 order, it has been stated as follows:-

"Though the charges relating to the purchase and selling of a second hand car has been fully substantiated in evidence, taking into account the fact that he had retired from service on 30.11.1999, Government taking a lenient view in the case have decided not to proceed further against him".

In the said circumstances, the government has decided to drop the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, Ext.P3 complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent herein as complainant before the court below, levelling almost the same allegations and by forwarding some other allegations also, against the petitioner. On getting Ext.P3 complaint, the court below forwarded the complaint to the VACB under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On getting the complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the VACB registered Ext.P4 FIR on 01.03.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.1999. Subsequently, the matter was investigated into and finally, Ext.P10 final report was filed in the matter on 23.09.2004. Presently, the registration of Ext.P4 FIR as well as Ext.P10 final report, and Ext.P9 summons issued by the court below, are under challenge.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.K.Damodaran for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri. T.G.Rajendran for the 2nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Some pertinent questions of law are raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the matter. This is a case wherein initially, Ext.P4 FIR was challenged by the very same petitioner before this Court through Crl.M.C. No.1668/1999. In that proceedings, the petitioner had challenged the very act of the court below in forwarding Ext.P3 complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by taking up an argument that instead of forwarding the complaint directly for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court below ought to have ordered a preliminary enquiry which was mandatory. In the said Crl.M.C., it seems that this Court had approved the action of the court below in forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and found that even without a preliminary enquiry, FIR can be registered on getting the complaint referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said decision is reported as Raghunathan v. State of Kerala, [2001 (3) KLT 444].

7. This Court, while entertaining the matter, had raised a doubt whether the decision rendered by this Court in Raghunathan (supra) will operate as res judicata or constructive res judicata as far as the present writ petition is concerned. The learned Senior Counsel by relying on the decisi