P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. The instant proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been taken up on the basis of a representation by the petitioner herein Sri A. Omkar, Son of Sri A. Jagath Kumar, resident of 71, Sealord 'B' Building, Cuffee Parade, Bombay during his temporary stay at Room No. 9. Secunderabad Club at Secunderabad to the Chief Justice of the Court, which is as follows :-
'I am the President of World Investments Ltd., which is a company with International Reputation. I got an offer from JCT Ltd., Phagwara, to be their Indenting Agent in Andhra Pradesh in the name and style of Andhra Associates. The offer came in the Month of June, 1994 after great pursuation from my side. Meanwhile one Mr. A. Gopal Rao approached and requested me to include him as the partner in the said Organisation and offered to pay the Security Deposit to JCT Ltd. and comply with all necessary formalities and manage the Agency on regular basis. As I was due to shift to Bombay in connection with the management of World Investments Ltd., accepted the offer given by him. It was agreed by us that he shall look after the day to day affairs of the Agency in Hyderabad and take 60% of the profits in the business.
In accordance to our understanding the said Mr. A. Gopal Rao deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- as Security Amount to JCT Ltd. through Demand Draft in the Month of October, 1994. Though the said Mr. A. Gopal Rao promised and agreed to look after the day to day business by resigning his job from Eenadu Group of Companies, backed out stating that his management was not accepting. He also did not come forward to comply with the further required formalities with the JCT Ltd. on behalf of Andhra Associates and started avoiding me. Several mediations sent to him were proved futile owing to the acts and deeds committed by the said Gopal Rao, I was forced to surrender my Agency back to JCT Ltd. as I had turned down several offers made to me by others to mange the said Agency as I had already committed the same to the said Gopal Rao and as I was shifting to Bombay.
But for the representation and promises made by the said Gopal Rao, I would not have entered into the said understanding which caused me huge financial loss and great amount of hardship and mental agony as I lost my credibility, image and reputation with the JCT Ltd., and business circles, apart from incurring huge financial losses due to loss of business.
Meanwhile, the said Gopal Rao started resorting to all sorts of Criminal activities and threatening me with dire consequences as and when I visit Hyderabad and also by phoning to Bombay and intimidating me. On 5-1-1996 at about 5-00 p.m. the said Gopal Rao came to my room in the Secunderabad Club along with two other persons who claimed themselves as Task Force Police and took me to the Task Force Office at Begumpet. There one Mr. Chawa Ramakoti the Addl. D.C.P. literally forced me to accept for the payment in spite of my explaining the entire situation and the acts of cheating committed by Gopal Rao. The said Addl. DCP gave me time till 7-4-1996 to settle the matter, failing which he threatened me that even the president of India cannot save me from his hands.
I came to Hyderabad on about 15th of this month to see my parents and to attend my Company's business and I am receiving anonymous calls forcing me to pay the said amount to Gopal Rao otherwise the Police will see my end.
In these circumstances I apprehend danger to my life and property from the hands of the said Gopal Rao who influenced the Addl. DCP Mr. Ramakoti taking the directions from the Commissioner of Police, as it is learnt.'
Sri Omkar has sought necessary orders/directions to the Commissioner of Police, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police of Task Force Mr. Chawa Ramakote and their officers not to interfere in the above and harass as Gopal Rao with their help was trying to extract Rs. 2,00,000/- from him.
2. In response to the notice of the Court, Sri Chawa Ramakote, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force, has stated in his counter-affidavit as follows :-
'The material allegations made against me in the representation by the petitioner is that I, literally forced the petitioner to accept to make payment to the said A. Gopal Rao, in spite of the petitioner explaining the acts of cheating committed by said A. Gopal Rao and that I, gave him time till 7-4-1996 to settle the matter failing which he cannot be saved by anyone.
The real and true facts are stated hereunder : On 28-12-1995, Smt. A. Shantha Yogeswari and Sri A. Gopal Rao lodged a complaint petition addressed to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force alleging that one Omkar (the petitioner in the above writ petitio) has cheated them and collected an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and a Draft for Rs. 1,00,000/- by making false promises that an agreement would be executed for partnership business with him to deal in whole sale cloth distribution business and on the other hand the demand draft that was given by them in favour of J.C.T. Limited Phagwara was deposited with J.C.T., Phagwara as if it is paid by Andhra Associates, Hyderabad. The petitioner also stated that Sri Omkar is not usually available at Hyderabad and he is living in Bombay and that he has come to Hyderabad then on a short visit and is likely to cheat more people in the manner in which he has cheated them and therefore, they requested that a thorough investigation into the matter and arrest the said white collar criminal ....... Sri A. Gopal Rao produced one P. Ramesh Kumar who is said to have introduced him to Omkar and who had a knowledge about the details of the dealing between Sri Omkar and Sri A. Gopal Rao. The said P. Ramesh Kumar also gave a statement in writing about the details of the transactions between them and as to how the said Sri Omkar duped Sri A. Gopal Rao. On receiving the said petition given by Smt. A. Shantha Yogeswari and Sri A. Gopal Rao and the written statement given by Sri P. Ramesh Kumar, since they disclosed a case of prima facie cheating and also that the petitioner complained that more people are likely to be cheated by Sri Omkar in the same manner and he may go away from Hyderabad to Bombay, I endorsed on the petition that Sri R. S. S. Charyulu, Inspector of Police, Task Force to enquire into the truth of the contents of the petition and report about the correctness of the allegations of the cheating contained in the said petition.
The Inspector of Police, Mr R.S.S. Charyulu who was enquiring into the matter went to room No. 9 of Secunderabad Club on 5-1-1996 at 11 a.m., and contacted Sri Omkar and enquired in respect of the allegations contained in the petition given by Smt. Shantha Yogeswari and Sri A. Gopal Rao. During the course of enquiry Sri Omkar asked the Inspector of Police as to who was the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force that asked him to make the enquiry. On that Sri Omkar expressed that he knew Sri Chava Ramakoti, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, and he would be happy to meet him at 5 p.m., in his office on the same day and explained to him about the allegations made against him by Sri A. Gopal Rao which according to him were untenable. The Inspector of Police came to me and informed me about this and he also informed Sri A. Gopal Rao about this and asked him to be present at that time. So that the versions of both of them could be known by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police.
At about 5 p.m., on 5-1-1996 Sri Omkar came to my office, by that time Sri A. Gopal Rao had already come to my office. Sri Omkar explained to me about the transactions entered into by him with Sri A. Gopal Rao and said that it is on account of breach of the agreement on the part of Sri A. Gopal Rao in not making the full payment of Rs. 50,000/- as agreed by him that he in his turn failed to get the agreement executed and arranged for the wholesale cloth distribution business. Sri A. Gopal Rao, on his part stated that for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which he paid in cash to Sri Omkar, he had not given any receipt for the said amount paid by him and therefore he was afraid to pay the rest of the amount as Sri Omkar was not willing to issue any receipt for the amount paid to him in cash. Finally Sri Omkar said that at any rate he would return the amount paid by Sri A. Gopal Rao, but however it is not possible to pay the amount then itself as he was not having sufficient funds and that he would pay the said amount in the month of April, 1996, for which Sri A. Gopal Rao also agreed.
On the facts revealed in this enquiry I felt that though prima facie the petition given by Sri A. Gopal Rao disclosed a case of cheating as alleged by him, it is ultimately a case of breach of agreement on both sides and therefore a dispute of civil nature and consequently there is no need to refer this matter to the concerned police station to take action. Therefore, I asked both the parties to settle the matter among themselves as the police cannot interfere in this matter and if they fail to come to any agreement they can seek their remedy before an appropriate Court. Since that time I never saw Sri Omkar, the petitioner in this writ petition nor did I ever called him nor did I threaten him that he should settle the matter with Sri A. Gopal Rao. I am not aware of any anonymous telephone calls said to have been received by the petitioner and I submit that I or anybody on my behalf had never telephoned to him.'
The Additional Deputy Commissioner has stated that Sri Omkar had levelled false allegations against him that he literally forced him to accept to make payment to Sri Gopal Rao and that he threatened him that no one could save him if he did not settle the matter. He has asserted that Sri Omkar voluntarily offered to Gopal Rao to return the amount paid by him and the only reason why Sri Omkar had sent the representation to the Chief Justice is because he wanted to evade payment to Gopal Rao as promised by him. He has also denied the allegation that Sri Omkar had any reasonable apprehension of danger to his life and property at his hands and that Gopal Rao had influenced him.
3. Gopal Rao has entered appearance in the proceeding and has filed an affidavit stating inter alia, that Sri Omkar was introduced to him by one Potluri Ramesh in the month of October, 1994. Omkar claimed himself to be an influential person and grandson of one Smt. T. Lakshmi Kantamma, a close associate of the ex-Prime Minister of India, Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao and asked him to take the agency relating to JCT Mills (Fabrics) for Andhra Pradesh. He (Omkar) asked him to deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs with the management of the JCT Ltd., Pagwara Manufacturers of J.C.T. brand textiles and another one lakh for doing business and assured that an agreement should be executed on an auspicious day as fixed by the astrologer. He (Gopal Rao) has alleged that :
'He further assured us that an an agreement shall be executed on an auspicious day as fixed by the astrologer. But before entering into the agreement the writ petitioner has taken Rs. one lakh draft dt. October 30th, 1994 from us in the name of JCT Limited, Pagwara and assured us that he will enter into an agreement within short period .... Without any agreement only he has taken Rs. 50,000/- cash along with the said draft in front of mutual friend Mr. Ramesh at Secunderabad Club, Room No. 9.
After payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- within a week writ petitioner rang up to Mr. Ramesh and informed him that a shop shall be and furniture and telephone shall be taken for running the business, for that reason he asked another sum of Rs. 50,000/- urgently. According to his demand Mr. Ramesh informed me the same, at that time itself I denied further payment by saying that after opening the Bank account as per the oral agreement we will deposit the said amount in Bank account .... Mr. Ramesh informed the same to Mr. Omkar then he told us that his chartered accountant is out of station after he comes back he will open the Bank account hence, he asked us to pay Rs. 50,000/- immediately ....
Later on we did not see the writ petitioner till 20, November, 1994 and informed us that he was in Bombay, all of a sudden he came to my residence along with Ramesh and requested me and my wife that he is in a critical position and needs Rs. 50,000/- immediately because our Royal family came from Arab countries when he should take care of in 'Holiday Inn Krishna'. Further he assured that he will enter in the agreement immediately after Royal family left the city. Even at this time also myself and petitioner No. 2 believed the words of writ petitioner and gave him Rs. 50,000/- cash. After receiving the said amount the writ petitioner asked us to meet him after one week. As per his instructions we met him then, he informed us that some others are also interested in this business and willing to pay Rs. 7 lakhs and asked us for another Rs. 2 lakhs for dealership as otherwise he will give the dealership to the other party. I informed him that we are not in a position to pay another two lakhs. Hence, asked him to return the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- paid to him. The writ petition promised to pay back the amount by end of February. 1995. Later on we met him in the last week of February, 1995 on that day he told us that without any appointment we should not meet him and further threatened that he knows the Police Commissioner to Prime Minister personally and he can do whatever he wants. Since, then onwards we did not see him and his whereabouts are also not known to us. . in these unavoidable circumstances myself and my wife made a complaint on 8-12-1995 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, at Begumpet (Task Force), Hyderabad because he was living at Bombay and came back to Hyderabad on a short visit. . after receiving the complaint the Additional D.C.P. endorsed on the complaint that Sri. R. S. Charyulu, Inspector of Police, Task Force to enquire into truth of the contents of the complaint and asked him to report the same. As per the instructions of Additional D.C.P. the said S.I. has gone to Room No. 9 Secunderabad Club on 5-1-1996 at 11 a.m. met the writ petitioner and enquired about the allegations contained in the complaint given by us. During the course of investigation writ petitioner asked him that who was the Additional D.C.P., and after knowing the same Omkar informed that he knew Mr. Pamakoti Additional D.C.P. Task Force and he would be happy to meet him at 5 pm in his office on the same day. At about 5 pm on 5-1-1996 Omkar came to Additional D.C.P. Task force office and informed him in my presence that he will pay the amount in the month of April, 1996 for which I accepted but I did not receive a single paisa till today and issued a lawyer notice dt. 21-6-1996 to the Additional D.C.P., Task force that to initiate necessary prosecution proceedings against Mr. Omkar as per the complaint given by us. I further state that there was a threat to me and my family because 'Omkar' is making telephone calls to us that we should withdraw the complaint made against him failing which we should be facing dire consequences. Then we came to know that the writ petitioner made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of A.P. with all false allegations without making me as a party respondent after lapse of 3 months from 5-1-1996. . the police in discharge of their duties registered a crime and are investigating into the crime in exercise of powers of investigation and the same cannot be interdicted at this stage.'
4. Material papers include the petition that Smt. Yogeswari and Gopal Rao are alleged to have presented to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force and a statement by P. Ramesh Kumar dated 28-12-1995 filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force. Petitioner has replied to the affidavit of Gopal Rao and alleged that since Gopal Rao is hand in glove with the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, he has come forward with the above story and has not approached the Magistrate/Police of the concerned jurisdiction as going by the merits of the case both were aware that Gopal Rao had no case whatsoever and therefore :
'I was forcibly taken by Mr. Gopal Rao along with Task Force personnel to Mr. Chawa Ramakoti's Office on 5-1-1996 and threatened, coerced and intimidated which was followed by continued threats and intimidation causing mental agony and harassment to me which led to my making a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court, stating the facts. Inspite of my sending copies of the same immediately by registered post along with a notice addressed to the Commissioner of Police and Mr. Chawa Ramkoti, Addl. D.C.P. Task Force, desperate attempts were made by Mr. Chawa Ramakoti, his Inspector R.S.S. Charyulu and his men to arrest me, harm me and cause my illegal detention at odd hours to extract money for Mr. Gopal Rao. Details of the events and their acts are clearly stated by me in my reply to Mr. Chawa Ramakoti's affidavit before the Hon'ble Court.'
5. The petitioner has also filed a reply to the counter affidavit of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and has denied the allegation that he had voluntarily visited the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force and added :-
'I further state that after being taken to the task force office at Begumpet I was interrogated by the respondent Sri Chawa Ramakoti, Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force, in the presence of Sri. A. Gopal Rao and during the interrogation I clarified my note with regard to the JCT transaction and offered myself to a lie detector test. I also clarified that it was due to the fault of Sri. A. Gopal Rao that I was subjected to financial loss and loss of my reputation wish JCT Ltd., with whom I enjoyed a long term business relationship. I also stated to Sri Chawa Ramakoti, Addl. DCP, Task Force that Sri A. Gopal Rao was misleading him regarding the nature of the case and the facts to which Sri Chawa Ramakoti did not react for reasons best known to him. He inturn threatened me of dire consequences in the event of non payment of the demanded amount within the time stipulated by him and that the President of India could not save me from his hands and that if required he would have me brought from Bombay.'
6. From the above facts what can safely be culled out is that Gopal Rao filed some sort of complaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force on 28-12-1995, who entertained the same for some sort of enquiry/investigation and entrusted the so called enquiry/investigation to one Inspector of Police who, 'went to room No. 9 of Secunderabad Club on 5-1-1996 at 11. a.m. and contacted' the petitioner and enquired in respect of the allegations contained in the petition given by Gopal Rao and his wife. Petitioner Omkar visited the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police on the same day at 5 p.m. and explained his position, whether he did so voluntarily or as alleged was compelled to appear before him by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force or any other person at his behest. Questions, however, have arisen in the instant proceeding whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force could entertain a complaint and without registering a case for investigation depute an Inspector of Police for the so called enquiry who (Inspector of Police) admittedly went to room No. 9 of Secunderabad Club on 5-1-1996 at 11 a.m. where petitioner was staying. It is conceded in course of the arguments before us that there is no Police Station called Task Force in the city of Hyderabad and thus there is no Officer incharge or an Officer superior in rank to the Officer in charge of the Task Force Police Station in the State. The offence, if any, according to the allegations, it is conceded, was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Karkhana Police Station of the city of Hyderabad and at no time, any complaint was made against the petitioner or forwarded to Karkhana Police Station or to the Officer-incharge of the Karkhana Police Station or any Officer superior in rank of the Officer incharge of the Karkhana Police Station. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police has admitted that he received the complaint, entertained it and deputed Inspector of Police R.S.S. Charyulu for the alleged enquiry.
7. There is no controversy that Code of Criminal Procedure shall govern the proceedings starting from the lodgment of any information with the Police, investigation, if any, and the report that the Police is required to submit to the Court. A positive role to prevent commission of any crime and in case any crime is committed to bring to book the culprits is assigned by the Code to the Police under the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Chapter XII thereof has contemplated information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence to be given either orally or in writing to the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station, substance of which has to be entered in a book to be kept by such Officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows :-
'Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-charge of the police station in relation to that offence.'
Investigation how made of cognizable cases and by whom and under whose orders, are matters taken care of by Section 156 of the Code and the procedure in this behalf is prescribed under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No power to hold preliminary enquiry, however, is contemplated for any Police Officer before registration of a case for investigation and in case any such enquiry is necessary after report of the registration of the case and investigation at the preliminary stage as contemplated under section 157 of the Code the power to hold preliminary investigation or preliminary enquiry is given to the Magistrate to whom the report is sent as prescribed under Sections 158 and 159 of the Code.
8. In the city of Hyderabad, however, the Police powers contemplated for the Officer incharge of the Police Station and of the Superintendent of Police of the district are assigned under the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, to the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad and the Deputy Commissioner of Police on being assigned such jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the Commissioner of Police for the areas covered by the Police Stations under their control. Since Task Force is outside of any contemplation or understanding of a Police Station any Officer whether of the rank of Inspector of Police or that of the Superintendent of Police cannot fit in the administrative hierarchy to rank above the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station in a district or a division of the City Police administration under the control of the Commissioner of city Police.
9. Learned Government Pleader, however, has drawn our attention to Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows :-
'36. Powers of superior officers of police :- Police officers superior in rank to an officer-incharge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station.'
We, however, cannot find the presence of the Officers assigned to Task Force as Police Officers superior in rank to an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station as this superior in rank Officer must be one who is appointed for the local area and for that local area, he may exercise the powers of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station under his control. An Officer thus may be superior in rank otherwise to that of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station but may not be an Officer appointed for the local area concerned within whose control the Police Station falls. A district or a city may have several Police divisions and next in rank to the District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police there may be deputees and other Officers having limitations upon their jurisdiction both in respect of offences as well as territory. There can be a Police Station having jurisdiction over the entire State in respect of certain offences and there can be a Police Station having a limited territorial jurisdiction and limitations upon the types of offences which they can investigate or in respect of which they can deal with. This, however, cannot deny to a Police Officer exercising power as respects arrest of a person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or otherwise found as one who should be taken in custody or search of a place or places or search of the arrested person or seizure of offensive weapons and other properties. But in all such cases for cognizance to exercise power of the Officer-in-charge of Police Station, one must have the status of an Officer superior in rank, having been so appointed by the Government and if there is no such appointment merely because otherwise such a person is an Officer higher in rank, he cannot have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and order for any enquiry or investigation. Superior Police Officers, in particular, are not expected to be unaware of the division of the jurisdiction of the Officers and their being positioned for particular functions and to exercise jurisdiction in a particular area. Learned Government Pleader has stated in the Court that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force is an Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police in the city and thus, according to him, he is an Officer superior in rank to the Officer-in-charge of Karkhana Police Station. This, however, is based on no information about the jurisdiction for the purposes of administrative control which is assigned to the Task Force and any Officer who is appointed in the Task Force including the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned as Task Force, we have already noticed, is not a Police Station having any jurisdiction and Officers assigned to Task Force are not in the hierarchy of Officers, who exercise jurisdiction in respect of such area, which is assigned to them. It is difficult to accept the suggestion at the bar by the learned Government Pleader that Sri Chawa Ramakoti, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force was such a superior Officer of the Officer-in-charge of the Karkhana Police Station, who could entertain the complaint at his level and depute another Officer of the rank of Inspector of Police to hold enquiry into the matter. The legal course open to him was, in the event of complaint made to him by Sri Gopal Rao, to forward the same to the concerned Police Station or to the Commissioner of Police for the needful so that a proper and legal authority could be exercised and the case could be registered and investigated, if at all any offence, as alleged, was made out.
10. Even if it is conceded, which concession, however, is not permissible that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was an Officer superior in rank to the Officer-in-charge of Karkhana Police Station, could he without registration of the case depute the Inspector of Police and decide at his own level whether, as alleged, any offence has been made out or not. The only answer to the above is that he could not do so. We have already noticed some of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this behalf. As an Officer superior in rank, while he could exercise the powers of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, he could at best act as contemplated under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or as a superior Officer order for the registration of the case at the appropriate Police Station and could subject to the control of the Magistrate as contemplated under the Code either investigate the case himself or entrust the investigation to another Officer. We wanted to know, in course of the hearing of the instant proceeding, the purpose for which the Task Force has been created and though nothing in writing as an order of the Government of the State has been produced before us or that of the Commissioner of Police, we are informed by the learned Government Pleader that it has a responsible function to perform in keeping a watch on the criminal activities in the city and as and when required to see that no person committed any cognizable offence or acted in any manner that caused any break down of law and order. It is not difficult to see the wisdom in developing such a force in a city like Hyderabad, which is ever expanding as an urban aglomeration and has many reasons to be one of the important cities in the country where different communities live for their livelihood and engage in various kinds of activities. A communication dated 21-6-1996 from the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department has, however, been brought to our notice which states that the Commissioner's Task Force, Hyderabad city, was constituted in the year 1981, vide G.O. Rt. No. 4250, General Administration (SC-C) Department dated 1-9-1981 with a view to check social evils like gambling, illicit liquor, prostitution, eve teasing, narcotics, video piracy, obscene dances, obscene films, pornographic literature, black-marketing in cinema tickets, rowdyism and to have check over Dossier Rowdies, Budding Rowdies, Anti-social elements including communal elements etc. We fail, however, to find any justification for the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, with the above, to entertain the complaint of Gopal Rao and his wife against the petitioner in respect of, if at all the allegation of the payment is true, either cheating or criminal breach of trust. We do not propose, in the instant case, to investigate and we do not find the materials in the instant proceeding for a definite finding whether Gopal Rao and his wife have reasons to allege that petitioner has committed any cognizable offence. If, however, there have been such reasons for Gopal Rao and his wife to allege that petitioner has committed a cognizable criminal offence, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police has not been just to them when he decided at his own level to close the complaint by holding that it disclosed a civil dispute. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, it is obvious, has exceeded his jurisdiction in this behalf. When shall the Police in the country realise that it has no power to judge a case and decide on its own. Law of the land has given only a limited recognition to the police report in respect of any offence. If as a result of the investigation of a case, it is found that any cognizable offence is made out and report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is submitted to the Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence, may not take cognizance and ask for further investigation and may, on the basis of the materials produced along with the report, decide to reject the report of the police. If the report is in respect of any non-cognizable offence, the Magistrate may treat the same as a private complaint and proceed, as in any case of a private complaint, to decide whether cognizance should be taken or not. Two important provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are most often not adverted to, are Section 169 and 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One says - if, upon an investigation, it appears to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such Officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and try the accused or commit him for trial and the other says. - (1) if, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed; (2) when the officer-in-charge of a police station forwards an accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his appearance before such Magistrate under this section, he shall send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may be necessary to produce before him, and shall require the complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who appear to such officer to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as he may think necessary, to execute a bond to appear before the Magistrate as thereby directed and prosecute or give evidence (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against the accused; (3) if the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in the bond, such Court shall be held to include any Court to which such Magistrate may refer the case for inquiry or trial, provided reasonable notice of such reference is given to such complainant or persons, and (4) the officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall deliver a copy thereof to one of the persons who executed it, and shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his report. A fair and proper registration of the case and investigation will leave no room for any person either the complainant or the accused to say that all that has transpired in course of the investigation by the Police has not been maintained in accordance with law. Diary of proceedings in investigation and report of Police Officer can completion of investigation, as contemplated under Sections 172 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are sufficient guarantee for a Court to see what has transpired in course of investigation and then to know whether accusation as to the unfairness of the investigation is sustainable or not. The proceedings on the complaint of Gopal Rao and his wife have been dealt, however, in such a manner by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police that except the complaint and the conflicting versions of the parties before us in the name of any material, we have the statement of one Ramesh Kumar only. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police has not taken care of obtaining a report from the Inspector of Police, whom he has deputed to visit the room in the Secunderabad Club, in which the petitioner was staying at the relevant time.
11. It is thus clear from the materials and a cursery analysis of the Provisions of the law that Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, respondent No. 2, has acted without jurisdiction and has interfered in a matter which in ordinary circumstances would have gone to Karkhana Police Station and the Police in such a situation would have investigated the case and submitted report to the Court. Since we have chosen, in the instant case, not to enter into the controversy whether the petitioner was called to the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force or was forced to come to the said Office either by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police himself or by the Inspector of Police who had been deputed by him, we are not recording any finding on the question whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police had wrongfully confined the petitioner at the behest of Gopal Rao and his wife. Even though we record no finding in this behalf, we find, for good reasons, that petitioner has been subjected to harassment and uncalled-for interference with his liberty by the respondent Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and we have no manner of doubt that his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been interfered with by the respondents with out any authority of law. We record no finding, however, in respect of the complaint of Gopal Rao and his wife. It is for them to choose the correct course of law for legal remedy, if any. We have given our anxious consideration to the relief that we should grant to the petitioner. One obvious relief, however, is to restrain the respondents from interfering with the liberty of the petitioner, save in accordance with law, the other to award compensation or not, however, to the petitioner has detained us considerably. Whether petitioner has cheated Gopal Rao or not, he (Gopal Rao) has parted with money. The disputed amount is only what is alleged to have been paid in cash by Gopal Rao to the petitioner and not the payment by draft. We have no information, however, whether the draft of Rupees one lakh has reached J.C.T. Mills and they have appropriated it. J.C.T. Mills has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the instant proceeding. We also have no information whether the amount of Rupees One lakh allegedly paid by draft drawn in favour of J.C.T. Mills (Fabrics) has been withdrawn from the account of Gopal Rao by any person including the petitioner. In the absence of any materials before us for a definite understanding of the transaction in this behalf, it will be unfair to assume in favour of the petitioner and against Gopal Rao and his wife. We do not, for the said reason, propose to grant any compensation to the petitioner.
12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs. Respondents are restrained from interfering with the liberty of the petitioner in any manner except in accordance with law. Hearing fee Rs. 1,500/-.
13. Petition allowed.