JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The filing of this petition, which makes a very unhappy and unpleasant reading, sadly, projects once again the conduct of some Police Officers which tends to tarnish the image and reputation of the Department and is likely to forfeit the trust and confidence which the public is supposed to repose in the Institution as a whole, inasmuch as it reveals upto what extent mental and moral dishonesty on extraneous considerations can render ineffective the machinery of an Institution which is supposed to be the custodian of the rule of law turning it, thus, in a real mockery in the eyes of public. This is precisely the grievance of the petitioner who has approached this Court with a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the Police Officers, namely, the Police Inspector of Panaji Police Station, in taking steps on a complaint lodged by him, which ex facie reveals the commission of serious offences under Indian Penal Code against the accused, who is the respondent No. 1 in the petition, and persistently refused to prosecute him in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner, who contends to be a businessman dealing in pharmaceutical products as stockist and distributor in Goa under the name and style of M/s Satkar Agencies, states that he has a godown-cum-office situated on the first floor of Azavedo building belonging to the respondent No. 1 to whom for the last 16 years he is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and Rs. 50/- for two partitioned rooms. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23rd October, 1994, he along with his son went to remove some pharmaceutical stocks from the godown and he was shocked to find that the locks on the door of the premises occupied by him had been removed and replaced by some other locks thereby preventing the petitioner from entering the rented premises. The petitioner also states that on 13th August, 1994 he had approached the respondent No. 1 to pay him rents from January 1994 to July 1994, as per his practice for the last many years and that the respondent No. 1 refused to accept the same. The petitioner also states that on 13th August, 1994 he had approached the respondent No. 1 to pay him rents from January 1994 to July 1994, as per his practice for the last many years and that the respondent No. 1 refused to accept the same. Thereafter he again approached the said respondent on 7-9-1994 with additional rent for the month of August, 1994 which once again the respondent No. 1 refused to accept. Therefore on 1st October, 1994 the petitioner sent to the said respondent rents for the months from January 1994 to September 1994 by Money Order which the respondent refused to accept and returned the same to the petitioner. It was contended that the respondent has clearly shown his mala fide intention to evict him from the rented premises and in fact succeeded in so doing by illegally restraining him from entering the premises without the due process of law. This also became evident from the fact that the said respondent cut and removed the old locks and replaced the same by new ones. The petitioner therefore immediately approached the Panaji Police Station wherein one A.S.I., who was in-charge, showed reluctance to record his complaint, which prompted him to approach the respondent No. 2, the Police Inspector, who asked the concerned A.S.I. to obtain a written complaint from the petitioner with all the documents. Accordingly the petitioner filed written complaint supported by all documents such as rent receipts for the past 16 years, electricity bills, correspondence, dealership licences. etc. all bearing address of the petitioner as Azavedo Building. However, the said Assistant Sub-Inspector recorded his complaint as Non-cognizable and asked the petitioner to approach the Civil Court on the ground that the matter was of civil nature. The petitioner, in view of the stand taken by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, approached the respondent No. 3 requesting him to direct his subordinate to make appropriate enquiries and to take necessary criminal action against the accused who has committed offences of criminal trespass, house breaking, mischief, nuisance, wrongful restraint, all the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It was then pointed out to the respondents Nos. It was then pointed out to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that the respondent No. 1 had virtually evicted the petitioner from the rented premises without due process of law and with muscle power and if such tactics could succeed due to the failure of competent authorities to take appropriate criminal action, this would encourage unscrupulous landlords to successfully evict the unwary tenants without due process of law driving the helpless tenants to approach the Civil Courts and, at the same time, giving a premium to the muscle power. However, no action has been taken either by respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 and he has been simply informed that the matter being of civil nature he should approach the Civil Court. The petitioner states that he had filed a civil suit for permanent mandatory injunction against the respondent with prayers to direct the respondent No. 1 to remove his locks from the suit premises. In the meantime the petitioner learnt that the respondent No. 1 had destroyed all the stocks existing in the suit premises worth about Rs. 1,86,000/- by throwing them from the first floor and setting fire to the cartons and removing part of the consignment, which practically tantamounts to commiting theft and criminal misappropriation. It was stated that the respondent No. 1 had committed offences which are punishable with imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code, but even assuming that no such offences had been committed, it was the bounding duty of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to investigate the matter in the face of the voluminous evidence of possession of the suit premises placed by him before the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The respondents therefore ought to have taken appropriate action on behalf of the State against the accused and ought to have prosecuted him for the above offences. It was also stated that since the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to do their duty and remained passive spectators on the contention that the matter was of civil nature, the petitioner was forced to launch private prosecution in the matter by lodging a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. It was also stated that since the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to do their duty and remained passive spectators on the contention that the matter was of civil nature, the petitioner was forced to launch private prosecution in the matter by lodging a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. It was contended that even for minor offences criminal prosecution is always launched by the Police Department and here was a case where a number of criminal offences as defined by the Penal Code had been committed, goods worth Rs. 1.86,000/- had been stolen and destroyed and the tenant had been illegally and without due process of law evicted and still the respondents were insisting that it was a case of civil nature. It was urged that the respondent No. 2 was either ignorant of law or was committed to protect respondent No. 1 from any criminal liability for reasons best known to himself. The petitioner stated that the reasons appeared to be obvious since the respondent No. 1 was a Bar owner, having a centrally located Bar in Panaji and with the conspicuous inaction on the part of the respondent No. 3, the omission on the part of respondent No. 2 to take action had acquired wider significance. The petitioner has therefore prayed that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct appropriate investigation in the matter and in view of the alleged criminal offences launch competent process against the respondent No. 1 according to law. Specifically the petitioner has sought a direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to take cognizance of the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 23rd October, 1994 against respondent No. 1 and take appropriate criminal action in the matter. 4. Shri Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor, although at the very initial stage sought to explain the action of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in not launching any criminal prosecution against the respondent No. 1 on the ground that they had taken legal advice on the matter and it was found that the issue was eminently of a civil nature, however, has fairly conceded that such prosecution could have been instituted and for that purpose he has produced before us the competent file of the investigation carried on by the Police Department. 5. 5. On behalf of the respondent No. 1 an affidavit was filed in reply, wherein it has been contended that the petitioner has already filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, making allegations against him which are false and also allegations against the Police Department in the same manner as he has done in the present criminal petition. In order to find out the veracity of the allegations in the petition the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had issued an order for investigation by the Police under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, the Police machinery was set in action by the lower Court for investigating the alleged offences and being so the petitioner is not required to invoke jurisdiction of this Court on the same issue by mala fidely concealing the de facto possession of the suit premises held by respondents since 1st September, 1994, which possession was, according to the respondent No. 1, handed over by the petitioner to him in the presence of his friend and two independent persons. The respondent further denied that the petitioner, at any time, sought to advance licence fees in arrears either in August or September or made him accept any Money Order subsequently. It is stated that the suit premises was only an office premises and there was no question of the petitioner storing any material therein much less as alleged by the petitioner. It was further contended that few articles he had in the suit shop were removed by him on 1st September, 1994 at the time of surrendering peaceful possession of the premises by him in the presence of two independent persons. He also denied that he had removed and destroyed any articles as alleged by the petitioner which were purportedly existing in the suit premises. It was stated that there was no question of such destruction or removal since the Civil Judge, Junior Division had passed an ex parte order in Regular Civil Suit No. 192/94 for sealing the suit premises which were accordingly sealed by the Court since that day. 6. We have heard learned Counsel and also perused the file of the Investigation Officer made available to us by the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. We have heard learned Counsel and also perused the file of the Investigation Officer made available to us by the learned Public Prosecutor. At the outset we must note that the record strongly suggests that since the very beginning this matter was thoroughly mishandled by the Investigating Agency insofar as the prosecution of the respondent No. 1 is concerned. The record shows that on 23-10-1994 when the petitioner approached the Panaji Town Police Station to lodge his written complaint wherein he has stated that the respondent No. 1 had committed offences of criminal trespass and theft so as to get him evicted from the tenanted premises without the due process of law and for that purpose he has broken the locks of the tenanted premises replacing them by some other locks, the Police asked the petitioner to produce documents of possession for their perusal which in fact was done by the petitioner on the next day, i.e. 24-10-1994. On that day the petitioner has produced a number of documents which indicate that the petitioner was paying rents to the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit premises and a number of receipts have been issued by him in this regard. Several other documents like licences issued by the Panaji Municipal Council to carry on the trade of stockist and distributors of pharmaceutical products were also presented along with documents concerning payment of electricity bills and cash memos as well as the requisition orders from laboratories, being even one dated 20-10-1994, i.e. 3 days prior to the complaint. All these documents show that the petitioner's firm named and styled as 'Satkar Agencies' has its address as being Azavedo Building, Patto, Panaji. There are also documents to show that rents sent by money order by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 in the month of October for the period from January, 1994 to September, 1994 were refused to be accepted by the respondent No. 1 on 4th October, 1994 on which date the money orders were returned. 7. All this should have led the Police to conclude that the petitioner was in fact either a tenant or at least in actual occupation of the suit premises in respect whereof he had complained that he had been forcefully dispossessed by the respondent No. 1 without due process of law. 7. All this should have led the Police to conclude that the petitioner was in fact either a tenant or at least in actual occupation of the suit premises in respect whereof he had complained that he had been forcefully dispossessed by the respondent No. 1 without due process of law. Inspite of that the record shows that after the production of such documents one A.S.I. Shri L.R. Saunsthanik has written a letter to the Public Prosecutor enclosing the application and the documents produced by the petitioner and requested him to peruse the same and give his advice as to whether it was a criminal case actionable by the Police or otherwise. On this letter the Public Prosecutor has recorded his legal opinion by stating that from the documents produced by the complainant it appears that the respondent No. 1 has taken possession of the suit premises forcibly without due process of law and hence offences under sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. have been committed. The Public Prosecutor has requested the Police Officer to register the offences and investigate the same by taking the statement of the respondent No. 1 and place the papers later on for his further opinion. On the strength of this advice the A.S.I. recorded the statement of respondent No. 1 wherein he has obviously denied that he has done anything wrong on the matter. The respondent No. 1 has stated that the premises had been surrendered voluntarily by the petitioner to him in the last week of August, 1994, i.e. 31st August, 1994 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Krishna Arjun Vaigankar and Dnyaneshwr D. Naik. He therefore claimed peaceful possession of the vacant premises wilfully given to him by the petitioner and contended that the allegations made against him were false and backed by motivated intention so as to unnecessarily involve him in criminal offences. He had, however, admitted that the only mistake committed by him in the entire process was that the transaction had not been noted down in any of the deed or act because it had occurred in a friendly atmosphere since the relations between him and the petitioner were good. Therefore no sooner he took possession of the premises he had kept household articles such as chairs, tables, cans, etc. and locked the same. Therefore no sooner he took possession of the premises he had kept household articles such as chairs, tables, cans, etc. and locked the same. He thus contended that the petitioner had falsely implicated him by lodging this complaint mischievously for his own vested interest. Besides the petitioner has also filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. In the circumstances it was claimed that the facts narrated by the petitioner showed that there is no dispute at all over the premises which have been dispossessed. To be noted that this statement of the respondent No. 1 was recorded by the Police without even registering any complaint as suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor. This is certainly the first illegality committed by the Police in this regard as no investigation could have been started by the Police without a complaint having been duly registered by him. To be noted that in this regard the Public Prosecutor had already advised him to do so but for obvious reasons the Police Officer has failed to comply with this advice. It is seen that this statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded by the A.S.I. Saunsthanik on 27-10-1994 and thereafter on 31-10-1994 the said A.S.I. recorded statements of the two witnesses who according to the respondent No. 1 were allegedly present when the possession was given to him by the petitioner. In their statements both Krishna and Dnyaneshwar have tried to support the case sought to be made by the respondent No. 1. Krishna has stated that in the month of August, 1994 when he and Dnyaneshwar were sitting in the Bar of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner came to the shop at about 4.00 p.m. and told respondent No. 1 that he was going to vacate the room which he was occupying since he did not require the same any more. By saying so the petitioner gave the keys of the rooms and surrendered the premises without any complaint. This witness went also to the extent of saying that he knew that the petitioner had wilfully vacated the premises in his presence and had personally taken away all his belongings and then only the respondent No. 1 has kept his household articles like furniture etc. in the premises. This witness went also to the extent of saying that he knew that the petitioner had wilfully vacated the premises in his presence and had personally taken away all his belongings and then only the respondent No. 1 has kept his household articles like furniture etc. in the premises. In his turn Dnyaneshwar has stated that on 31-8-1994 when he and Krishna were sitting in the Bar of respondent No. 1 the petitioner came there and told the respondent that he does not require any more the possession and occupation of the premises and he was therefore giving back the vacated rooms. Accordingly he himself handed over the key to the respondent and surrendered the premises. This witness also added that it was therefore false to say that the respondent No. 1 has taken possession of the premises forcibly because only on being handed over the vacant premises by the petitioner he kept his furniture in the same. The witness also added that he feels that there must be some personal grudge to defame the respondent for reasons best known to him. 8. It is pertinent to note that on 24th October, 1994, that is to say on the next day after the complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the Police Station, the respondent No. 1 presented before the A.S.I. Saunsthanik an application stating that on 1st September, 1994 the petitioner had approached him and informed him that he did not wish to continue in the said room and as such he did not want it any longer. According to him the petitioner willingly handed over the vacant and peaceful possession to him in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Krishna Vaigankar and Dnyaneshwar Naik, on 1st September, 1994. The transaction was peaceful and vacant possession was given to him. However, this was not reduced to writing on account of friendly relations between him and the petitioner. After handing over vacant possession of the room as owner he kept his household articles like furniture, etc. in the room and locked the same. The respondent hence claimed that there was no claim at all over the room by the petitioner. However, this was not reduced to writing on account of friendly relations between him and the petitioner. After handing over vacant possession of the room as owner he kept his household articles like furniture, etc. in the room and locked the same. The respondent hence claimed that there was no claim at all over the room by the petitioner. It is therefore surprising that in view of this contradictory documentary evidence A.S.I. Saunsthanik still insisted that the whole matter was involving a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 when the respondent No. 1 himself has advanced that there was no dispute at all between them. On the other hand the Investigation Officer failed to consider, irrespective of the fact that the date of handing over possession was differing in the application made by the respondent No. 1 himself and in the statement recorded by him from the said respondent and his witnesses that the allegation that the possession of the premises had been handed over by the petitioner either on 31st August or 1st September, 1994 was to be deemed as wholly falsified by the documentary evidence which the petitioner had in his possession, namely, the certificate issued by the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank on 4-11-1994 wherein it has been stated that the stock belonging to M/s Satkar Agencies and stored at Azavedo Building had been physically verified by the Branch Manager on 1-10-1994 and found the same in order as to cover the value of the limit. This document is supported by another document issued by the same Bank wherein the Manager has recorded that he has verified the stock and found it correct which document is also shown as dated 1st October, 1994. Along with this document the petitioner has produced a list of stock stored in the suit premises which shows that its value is Rs. 1, 86,000/-. 9. All this documentary evidence could have never been ignored by the Police Officer in order to come to the unacceptable conclusion that in view of the statements recorded from the respondent No. 1 alone as well as of his false witnesses the case was involving only a civil dispute. To be noted that the petitioner was never examined by the Police Officer nor asked to support his complaint with necessary evidence in this regard. To be noted that the petitioner was never examined by the Police Officer nor asked to support his complaint with necessary evidence in this regard. The A.S.I. Saunsthanik chose instead to write to the petitioner on 1-11-1994, inspite of all this overwhelming evidence, to inform him that with reference to his complaint filed against the respondent No. 1, the case was of civil nature and he was requested to approach the competent Court to get his grievance redressed if he so desired. Before that the said officer wrote to the Public Prosecutor on 28-10-1994 seeking a fresh opinion on the basis of the statement recorded from the respondent No. 1 alone without making him available any further statements either from the complainant/petitioner or from the so-called eye witnesses whose names were disclosed by the respondent No. 1 as having remained present at the time the possession of the premises was allegedly given to him. It is, however, regretful that on the mere basis of such single statement the Public Prosecutor this time opined that the complainant voluntarily gave back the premises to the respondent and therefore since he has already filed a civil suit it appears that the matter was of civil nature to be decided by the Civil Court as no criminal offence was involved. The record shows that pursuant to letter addressed by A.S.I. Saunsthanik to the petitioner he has filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, who in his turn chose to refer again this matter to the Police for investigation under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code and forward the report within 3 months. 10. We cannot but express our displeasure at the approach of the learned Magistrate on this matter also, bearing in mind that in the complaint which had been filed before him by the petitioner he had expressly mentioned that the Panaji Police Station was very much reluctant to record the complaint and inspite of the fact that he had spoken to the Inspector-in-charge of the Police Station, A.S.I. Saunsthanik had refused to accept it and insisted that the complaint was of civil nature. The complaint was also bringing to the notice of the Court that the accused besides taking forcible possession of the suit premises had destroyed pharmaceutical stock worth about Rs. The complaint was also bringing to the notice of the Court that the accused besides taking forcible possession of the suit premises had destroyed pharmaceutical stock worth about Rs. 1, 86, 000/- by dumping the cartons from the first floor to the ground below and setting fire to the same and inspite of that the Police had not taken any action and instead, by letter dated 1st November, 1994, had informed him that the complaint was of civil nature. We are really at a loss to appreciate as to how, after all this was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, he again placed the petitioner in the hands and at the mercy of these very same persons who had so badly mishandled his case earlier and refused to admit that the respondent No. 1 had committed any criminal offence. Being so the learned Magistrate was supposed to realize and it is not difficult to anticipate what should be the Report that the learned Magistrate could expect from such Police Officer. The result is obvious and the record shows that inspite of the Magistrate having given to the Police a long rope and a large period of 3 months to investigate, the A.S.I. Saunsthanik showed his readiness and alacrity in sending to the Magistrate a report entirely moulded in the line of reasoning which he had adopted when the petitioner approached personally before him to redress his grievances against the respondent No. 1. The Report refers to the necessary enquiries which had been instituted by him when the record shows that the only enquiry that he had done was to record the statement of respondent No. 1 and his two alleged witnesses. The said report mentions that these enquiries reveal that there is a dispute over the possession of the premises and that the complainant has falsely implicated the respondent No. 1 in his own interest. The Report also adds that since the facts narrated by the petitioner were found to be suspicious and misleading all the papers were referred by him to the Public Prosecutor for his legal opinion, which unfortunately backed the views taken by the Police and on the strength whereof the report says that the case is of civil nature and no criminal offence is revealed in the light of the facts narrated by the complainant. 11. 11. We are now placed in a very strange situation where a Court of law appears to have overlooked that such a matter should have never been handed over to the very same Police Officer who had mishandled the case earlier, to be further investigated. Inspite of that we are, however, unable to accede to the petitioner's prayer that the Police Officer should be directed to institute criminal proceedings against the respondent No. 1 and carry on the investigation in order to launch criminal prosecution against him. We say so because in our judgment this would be an exercise in futility and no advantage the petitioner could derive from such an exercise. It is evident that the Police Officer has already made up his mind on the matter and since the petitioner himself has already approached the Criminal Court, it is in the fitness of things that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class should carry on the enquiry in the matter with utmost diligence and concern totally ignoring the biased and inadmissible report sent by A.S.I. Saunsthanik at his behest. We only hope that the learned Magistrate will make up his earlier lapse on the matter and proceed with the case according to law. 12. We, however, direct the respondent No. 2, the Inspector General of Police, to institute immediately an enquiry on the matter of the allegations contained in the petitioner's complaint and in this petition as well so as to find out under what circumstances A.S.I. Saunsthanik has refused to institute criminal proceedings against the respondent No. 1 inspite of the fact that the first legal opinion rendered by the Public Prosecutor had advised him to do so and even indicated the offences under which such prosecution should have been launched against the respondent No. 1. The Inspector General of Police is therefore requested to carry on the said enquiry and report compliance of the same to this Court within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Inspector General of Police is therefore requested to carry on the said enquiry and report compliance of the same to this Court within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. For that purpose a copy of this judgment should be sent to the Inspector General of Police along with all the documents produced by the petitioner, namely, the certificate issued by the Manager of the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank, which clearly indicates the falsity of the stand taken by the respondent No. 1 in the matter in alleging that the possession of the premises had been voluntarily handed over to him by the petitioner either on 31st August, 1994 or 1st September, 1994. 13. Rule accordingly made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case we direct the A.S.I. Saunsthanik to pay to the petitioner costs which we quantify in the amount of Rs. 500/-. Rule made absolute.