Allegations of misconduct under IPC sections were found insufficient, leading to a dismissal of further investigation orders against the petitioner.

1. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in VC No.2/2018 / PTA of Vigilance and Anti - Corruption Bureau (VACB), Pathanamthitta. In the said crime, one Dr.Jeeve Justus, Orthopaedic Surgeon, General Hospital, Adoor was the accused. The allegation was that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the de facto complainant for the knee surgery of her son. VACB laid a trap. At about 4.20 p.m. on 30/06/2018 Dr.Jeeve Justus accepted the bribe, and the tainted notes were recovered from his possession. After due investigation, the VACB submitted Annexure - 3 final report. The recommendation in the report was to drop the proceedings against the accused. In the said report, it was stated that the ward duty chart maintained in the General Hospital, Adoor on the relevant day was manipulated by the petitioner, who was the Resident Medical Officer (RMO), with the intention to screen the offence committed by Dr.Jeeve Justus. He was to be on duty from 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. But he remained absent from the hospital unauthorisedly. To justify his absence, entries were made in the duty chart to appear that two other doctors were on duty. The Special Judge after considering the said report, as per Annexure - 1 order, directed further investigation in the matter. Further, the learned Special Judge emphasised the need to have an investigation into the misdeeds said to have been done by the RMO, who is the petitioner. The observations in that regard in Annexure - 1 are the following:

"11. That apart, there are enough materials to show that RMO, Dr.Nishad and Dr.Dhanya made corrections in the copy of ward duty register, with the intention of screening Dr.Jeeve Justus from criminal prosecution and thereby causing destruction of evidence. Prima - facie materials are there to invoke a charge u/s.201 and 203 IPC against them. In fact investigation has to be made regarding the commission of offences under Sec 465 and 466 of , as well. But these aspects were not considered the Investigating officer. The Investigating Officer and the Vigilance Director seems to be dancing to the tune of someone behind the curtain. Hence the refer report submitted by the Dy.S.P, VACB 2/18 / PTA is returned. The Investigating officer shall conduct further investigation into the matter and file final report in this case, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 60 days from today."

2. As a sequel to the said order, the petitioner was implicated as the 2nd accused in the crime. It appears that the investigating agency moved the Special Court for compelling the petitioner to furnish his standard writings obviously, for the purpose of examination by a handwriting expert. On the basis of the request in that regard made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB in C.M.P.No.1656 of 2022 the learned Special Judge issued summons to the petitioner as per Annexure - 4. Subsequently, the Special Judge passed Annexure - 5 order dated 17/12/2022, which reads as follows;
"A2 has no objection in collecting specimens of his handwriting. A2 is already on bail. Investigating Officer is directed to record the formal arrest of A2 and obtain his standard writing as provided in S.311A, CrPC, within 2 weeks from today."
The petitioner filed this Crl.M.C. invoking the provisions of S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) seeking to set aside Annexures 1, 4 and 5 orders.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant part of the final report, Annexure - 3, is extracted below:
"The investigation of the case revealed