1. The petitioner herein is a Senior Police Officer of IPS rank in Kerala. The first respondent herein brought a complaint against the police officer before the Special Court (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, containing so many allegations, including amassment of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income as a police officer, while working as Commissioner of Police at Ernakulam. On the said complaint, the court below directed a Quick Verification (preliminary enquiry). After a detailed enquiry into the various aspects of the matter including the meticulous details of the income and expenditure of the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Ernakulam Special Cell of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) submitted a report before the Court on 21.05.2015. The report of the VACB is that the acquisition of disproportionate assets made by the petitioner is only a negligible 0.25%, and the VACB reported that there is no scope for a prosecution under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Notice of this report was given to the complainant. The report of enquiry was seriously objected by the complainant. The petitioner also entered appearance in the proceedings, and filed statement in support of the report of enquiry.

2. After hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge passed orders on 18.03.2017 rejecting the report of enquiry, and forwarding the complaint to the VACB with a direction to register a case against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The said order of the trial court dated 18.03.2017 on Crl.M.P.No.582/2016 (the complaint) is under challenge in this original petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. To order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and to reject the Quick Verification Report submitted by the VACB, the learned trial Judge made an assessment and valuation of his own, finding that there are some factual mistakes in the assessment and valuation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The order passed by the court below is challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the court below erred in jurisdiction, or committed error of jurisdiction in making assessment and valuation of its own for ordering investigation, or that without resorting to the proper procedure on a complaint received under Section 190 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge valued the assets of the police officer and assessed the income and expenditure in his own way, to order investigation.

4. On getting notice on admission the first respondent entered appearance before this Court, and filed a statement of objection containing objections as regards the factual aspects, and also raising a preliminary legal objection that the impugned order cannot be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As regards the prayer for interim stay of proceedings also the first respondent raised a legal objection that stay of investigation cannot be ordered by this Court in view of the prohibition contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act. After hearing both sides on the jurisdictional issue, and other legal objections raised by the first respondent, this Court passed an interim order on 28.03.2017 suspending the enforcement of the impugned order passed by the trial court for a period of two months, and posting the Original Petition for hearing in detail, on the issues raised.

5. Against the interim order passed by this Court on 28.03.2017, the first respondent approached the Honourable Supreme Court of India with Special Leave Petition No.3547/2017. The Honourable Supreme Court disallowed special leave, and requested this Court to hear the matter finally on 26.05.2017, or any other date immediately thereafter. Accordingly, the original petition was taken up for final hearing. Thereafter, the first respondent got the matter adjourned on two occasions, and by the time h