Judgment : The accused in C.C.No. 8338 of 1992 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras; have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners for offences punishable under Secs. 166, 219, 229, 342, 357, 384 and 500 read with 34, I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The complainant is owning properties worth few lakhs of rupees. He is holding position in many public bodies. He was a Commissioned Officer in the army. He is also a member of number of the International Social Organisations. On 9. 1992, at about 11.30 hours, he was informed over phone by his nephew K.O.George, a Central Government Employee that he was assaulted by three persons, two of them co-tenants and a son of the landlord at about 9.30 hours. The problem arose on account of the attempt of the landlord to forcibly evict his nephew due to his refusal to pay increase in rent. The complainant contacted the control room and gave message. Oil that day, at 9.45 p.m. the complainant received message from his nephew’s wife that when they went to K-2 Ayyanavaram police station to enquire about the fate of their complaint, George was arrested at the instance of the landlord by Inspector of Police Vittal Raman, the first accused herein and he was put in the lock-up. The said landlord is known to the first accused. The complainant rushed to the said police station, accompanied by his son and a male servant and reached the police station at 10.30 p.m. He saw his nephew, coming out of the police station, just then released on bail. George narrated his sufferings at the hands of the first accused who had abused him in filthiest lanugate He had directed one of the counter complainants to lodge a complaint alleging that he was abused with reference to his caste. The complainant went into the police station and met A-2 and enquired about the offence committed by George for which he was arrested and lodged in the lock-up. A-2 advised the complainant to meet A-1 as he had dealt with George. The complainant entered into the office of A1 and requested him to clarify the case against George. The complainant went into the police station and met A-2 and enquired about the offence committed by George for which he was arrested and lodged in the lock-up. A-2 advised the complainant to meet A-1 as he had dealt with George. The complainant entered into the office of A1 and requested him to clarify the case against George. A-1 told him that the offence against George was under Sec. 75 of City Police Act. The complainant expressed his regret over his action in detaining George in the lock up for many hours, instead of releasing him on bail, on his own surety. A-1 got enraged and caught hold of his neck by the shirt and abused him in filthiest language. He dragged the complainant from his office towards lock-up. He told A-2 and others to search the complainant and put him in the lock up and referred him as in the presence of his people and others. The complainant told A-1 that he was formerly a commissioned officer in the rank of Major and pointed out his status and reputation. He also produced his identify card and other documents. A-1 told the complainant that he was under arrest and that he would be put up in the lock up. He refused to disclose the grounds for which he was arrested and to furnish copy of First Information Report which are mandatory as per Sec.50, Crl.P.C. The complainant told A-1 and A-2 that he is a diabetic. His request to release him on bail on his own surety or on the surety of others was rejected. After a brief meeting between A-1 and A-2. A-2 told the complainant to give in writing a letter of apology, according to their dictation. If he wanted to go home on bail or else to be prepared to enter the lock up, which was already over crowded. with drunkards etc. Thus A-1 and A-2 attempted to dishonestly extort a valuable security, after intentionally pulling the complainant in fear of putting him illegally in the lock, up. The complainant refused 10 do so and he was forcibly stripped clean, except his underwear and was pushed into the lock up by A-1 and A-2 with the assistance of others. The complainant’s appeal to permit him to wear his pants and socks, which he had to do as per medical advice, was rejected. The complainant refused 10 do so and he was forcibly stripped clean, except his underwear and was pushed into the lock up by A-1 and A-2 with the assistance of others. The complainant’s appeal to permit him to wear his pants and socks, which he had to do as per medical advice, was rejected. All these acts were committed by A-1 and A-2 being public servants disobeying the law with intention to cause injury to the complainant and thus they have committed offence under Sec. 166, I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 maliciously made an FIR against the complainant contrary to law and submitted it to the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and have thus committed offence punishable under Sec. 219, I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 being officers Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police respectively which gave them legal authority to commit persons for trial or confinement, maliciously kept the complainant to confinement on the night of 9. 1992, knowing fully well that in doing so they were acting contrary to law and hence they have committed offence punishable under Sec. 220, I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 wrongfully confined the complainant in their custody and hence they are liable to be punished under Sec. 342, I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 intentionally used criminal force against the complainant in attempting to wrongful confinement to illegal custody, and hence they have committed offence punishable under Sec. 357, I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 put the complainant in fear of injury and attempted to extort a valuable security from him in the form of letter of apology and A-1 by words spoken by him such as calling him as prostitute’s son and by referring him as intended to harm and harmed the reputation of the complainant and has thus committed an offence punishable under Sec. 500, I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 committed the above acts against the complainant in furtherance of their common intention and hence both of them are liable for the above act as per Sec. 34, I.P.C. The complainant was tortured inside the lock up. He was denied food, water and medicine and he was denied the facility of seeking legal advice. He was not released on bail. He was not allowed to communicate with his son or with his advocate to arrange for appearance before the court. Thus, A-1 and A-2 had denied the complainant the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. He was denied food, water and medicine and he was denied the facility of seeking legal advice. He was not released on bail. He was not allowed to communicate with his son or with his advocate to arrange for appearance before the court. Thus, A-1 and A-2 had denied the complainant the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 22of the Constitution of India. Hence the complaint. 3. Mr.S. Ananthanarayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the respondent had acted in the police station in a manner which attracted offence under Sec.75 of Tamil Nadu Police Act and hence he was arrested and put in the look-up in accordance with the procedure laid down by law and on the next day he was produced before the court and no offence whatsoever was committed by the petitioners, who were the Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police respectively. I have heard the respondent, who appeared in person on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. The first offence alleged is Sec.166, I.P.C. As per Sec. 166, I.P.C. whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys and direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. In the instant case, the petitioners 1 and 2 are Inspector of Police and Sub-inspector of Police respectively. In the complaint, it is alleged that A-1 told the complainant that he was under arrest and that he would be put in the lock-up and he refused to disclose the grounds for the arrest and to furnish him with a copy of the First Information Report which are mandatory as per Sec.50, Crl.P.C. and according to the Full Bench ruling of High Court of Judicature at Madras in 1988 etc. In para.7 of the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant was not even allowed to communicate with his son so as to arrange for appearance before the court and arrange for additional surety so as to get bail when produced for remand. In para.7 of the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant was not even allowed to communicate with his son so as to arrange for appearance before the court and arrange for additional surety so as to get bail when produced for remand. It is further alleged that A-1 and A-2 wanted to make sure that the complainant was remanded for 15 days, as requested and not released on bail with ulterior motives. It is also alleged that the complainant was not even allowed to call an advocate. I shall immediately refer to Art.22 of the Constitution of India. It reads as follows; “22(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal, practitioner of his choice. (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. Sec. 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: ”50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail: (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the per-son arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf." As per the allegations in the complaint, the provision made in Art. 22 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the petitioners/accused are to do as per law, is violated, with ulterior motive. Thus the complaint contained the allegations necessary to make out an offence under Sec. 166, I.P.C. and hence it cannot be quashed at the threshold. 5. Thus the complaint contained the allegations necessary to make out an offence under Sec. 166, I.P.C. and hence it cannot be quashed at the threshold. 5. The next offence alleged is one under Sec. 219 I.P.C As per Sec. 219, I.P.C whoever being a public servant corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Mr.Ananthanrayanan would submit that in order to constitute an offence under this section there must be a judicial proceeding, which had actually commenced and pending and there must be a report or order or verdict which he knows to be contrary to law and in the instant case, both these elements are absent. In the complaint, it is alleged that A-1 and A-2 being public servants, corruptly or maliciously made out a F.I.R. against the complainant contrary to law and submitted it to the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and thus have committed an offence punishable under. Sec. 219, I.P.C. the plain language of Sec. 219, I.P.C. shows that the submission made by Mr. Ananthanarayanan is well founded and these two elements are necessary to make out an offence punishable under Sec. 219, I.P.C. On the allegations made in the complaint, they are absent. So the petitioners cannot be proceeded with for offence under Sec. 219, I.P.C. 6. The next offence alleged is one under Sec. 220, I.P.C. Sec. 220, I.P.C. reads that whoever, being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or to confinement, or keeps any person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority knowing that in so doing he is acting contrary to law; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, of with both. In the instant case, according to the complainant, he only enquired Inspector of Police as to why he had arrested his nephew George and for that A1 got enraged and charged at the complainant catching hold of his neck by shirt and abused him in filthiest language and dragged him from his office to the lock-up room and again spoke abusive words and told him that he was under arrest and he would be put in the lock-up. Then it is further alleged that after their failure to get a letter of apology, put him in the lock up and wrongful confinement. Thus, I find that there are allegations which make out an offence under Sec. 220, I.P.C. During the course of evidence, it can be found whether the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was arrested only for an offence under Sec. 75, Tamil Nadu Police Act and put in the lock up on whether he was put in the lock up for the reasons slated in the complaint. That would come out only at the time of trial. At this stage, on this submission, the proceedings for this offence cannot be quashed, since necessary allegations are made in the complaint. 7. The next offence alleged is under Sec. 342, I.P.C. Sec. 342, I.P.C provides for punishment for wrongful confinement. According to the allegations made in the complaint, because he expressed his regret over the action of the first accused in detaining his nephew K. George in the lock up, A-1 got enraged and pushed him into the lock up room and ultimately A-1 and A-2 put him in the lock-up and that A-1 told him that he was under arrest, without even disclosing the grounds of his arrest and furnishing with copy of F.I.R. Thus, there are allegations to make out the offence of wrongful confinement and so the complaint cannot be quashed, regarding offence under Sec. 342, I.P.C. .8. The next offence alleged is one under Sec. 357, I.P.C. As per Sec. 357, I.P.C. whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting wrongfully to confine that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. In the instant case, there are allegations that both the accused used criminal force in attempting wrongfully to confine that person. Hence for this offence also proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. 9. The next offence alleged is one under Sec. 384, I.P.C. As per Sec. 384, I.P.C. whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Extortion is defined in Sec. 383, I.P.C. As per Sec. 383, I.P.C., whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion” “valuable security” is defined in Sec. 30, I.P.C. Sec. 30, I.P.C. reads that the words “valuable security” denote a document which is or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. According to the complaint the demand of A-2 to give in writing a letter of apology according to their dictation was an attempt by A-1 and A-2 to extort a valuable security. Thus, the allegations made in para. 6 of the complaint would make it appear that letter Of apology is a valuable security. It was to be written according to their dictation. What they would dictate cannot be known to the complainant. While so, from the allegations made in para.6, it cannot be inferred that there was any attempt to extort “valuable security”. Hence there are no ingredients to make out the offence under Sec. 384, I.P.C. and that part of the complaint is to be quashed. 10. The next offence alleged is one under Sec.500, I.P.C. In the complaint, it is alleged that A-1 had abused the complainant in vulgar words, which he had extracted in it, in the presence of other. Thus, there are allegations to make out this offence. .11. In Selvanathan alias Raghavan v. State by Inspector of Police, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 503, it was held that the cherished legal right vested in the accused under Art. 22(1) of the Constitution and Sec. 50(1). Thus, there are allegations to make out this offence. .11. In Selvanathan alias Raghavan v. State by Inspector of Police, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 503, it was held that the cherished legal right vested in the accused under Art. 22(1) of the Constitution and Sec. 50(1). of the Code to obtain full particulars of the offence or the grounds for his arrest, is based on well settled principles of law, as enunciated in a number of judicial pronouncements. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in part and the complaint is quashed with regard to the offences under Secs. 219 and 384, I.P.C. Regarding other offences alleged, the complaint is in order and so in other respects, the petition is dismissed. The court below shall proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously with regard to the offences alleged, other than Secs. 219 and 384, I.P.C. and dispose it of according to law.