JUDGMENT This is Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the father of detenu Roopa. In the petition, the petitioner alleged that his son Roopa was taken into custody on 27.6.95 and was illegally detained and tortured in police station Janakganj. Alongwith the petition a copy of the application (Annexure Pit), presented before the A.C.J.M. Gwalior, was also filed. In the application also it was submitted that Roopa has been taken into custody on 27.6.95 and he is tortured in the police station continuously and it was prayed that either he may be directed to be released from illegal detention or, in the alternative, he may be granted bail. On the aforesaid application report was called from the concerned police station. In the report (Annexure-P/2) submitted before the Court, it is mentioned that Roopa s/o Khajansingh is required in Crime No. 157/95 for offence u/S. 392 I.P.C. It was also mentioned that he is not detained in the police station, but his search is being made. It was reported that he has not been arrested. This report was submitted before the Magistrate. On the same day another application was filed, controverting the contention that Roopa has not been detained in the police station. It was reiterated that he was detained on 27.6.95 and a false report has been submitted before the Court of A.C.J.M. and that his detention is illegal. This application was filed on 2nd July 1995. On this application, further report was called for and on 3rd July 1995 another report was submitted in writing through A.P.P. to the effect that Roopa s/o Khajan Singh is not in the police station. In this report it has been mentioned that neither Roopa has been arrested nor is he required in any offence. It is further mentioned that the detenue has not been detained in the police station. On 3.7.95 itself, on behalf of detenu Roopa, telegrams were also sent to the State Government through Inspector General of Police, Superintendent Police, Gwalior. On 4.7.95, this petition was filed and endorsement shows that a copy whereof was given to the Office of the Addl. Advocate General on the same day at 10.30 a.m. The petition has come up for hearing on 5.7.95. Additional Advocate General was present on that day, who was directed to accept the notice on behalf of the State Government and file reply. Advocate General on the same day at 10.30 a.m. The petition has come up for hearing on 5.7.95. Additional Advocate General was present on that day, who was directed to accept the notice on behalf of the State Government and file reply. The case was then listed for hearing on 6.7.95. On 6.7.95 return, supported by an affidavit of Shri P.S. Yadav, S.H.O. Janakganj, was filed. After hearing the parties we directed that in view of the decision taken by the Supreme Court in case of Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 757 , the matter will be decided by us. It was also directed that the respondents may also rile additional affidavit of the party who actually effected arrest. Thereafter, an affidavit of Shri S.C. Saxena, A.S.I. Janakganj was filed. On 5.7.95, when produced before the Magistrate, grievance was made by Roopa the detenu, that he has been beaten by police. Then, the Magistrate directed the jail authorities to get the detenu medically examined. Accordingly, he was examined. Another application moved by Roopa for X-ray. Apparently, there was anomoly in documents Annexures-P/2 & P/4. Both are by the same officer. A perusal of Return shows that it was on 5.7.95 that during the intervening night of 4 & 5 at 1.45 a.m. i.e., on 5th July, 1995 Roopa was arrested u/Ss. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. We directed production of the detenu Roopa, who was produced from jail on 10.7.95. He was examined by the Court & statement recorded. Counsel for the respondents sought time to cross-examine, the case was adjourned to 11.7.95. On 11.7.95 an objection of preliminary nature was raised that any inquiry conducted by this Court is likely to prejudice the proceedings pending before the A.C.J.M. on the application for alleged illegal detention in police custody, filed on behalf of the detenu. After hearing it had been specifically ordered that we do not find any justification to close these proceedings and leave the matter for inquiry to any other Court. Thereafter, Roopa was cross-examined at length by counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted a long list of witnesses whom he proposed to examine to controvert the allegations made by Roopa. When, we were in the midst of the inquiry now an application has been made, registered as I.A. No. I/95. Thereafter, Roopa was cross-examined at length by counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted a long list of witnesses whom he proposed to examine to controvert the allegations made by Roopa. When, we were in the midst of the inquiry now an application has been made, registered as I.A. No. I/95. It is signed by the petitioner stating that since Roopa has now been released, the petitioner does not want to press the Habeas Corpus petition. It is apparent to us that for some fear or apprehension, not disclosed to the Court, the petitioner, who is father of Roopa, does not want to proceed in the case. No application for withdrawal of the petition, has been filed by Roopa although as reported to us he has now been released having been granted bail by the concerned Court. The allegations against respondent No. 3, if true, are serious and require a thorough probe so that not only the persons found responsible and guilty are suitably proceeded against departmentally or be otherwise punished in accordance with law, but, inquiry is also necessary to arrest recurrence of such incidents, regularly reported to this Court in substantial number by habeas corpus petitions filed against the police. We make it clear that if in the inquiry the petitioner or his son Roopa (the alleged detenu) is/are found to have made a false statement for committing perjury suitable action is instituted and/or initiated against him or them, on the basis of the conclusion in the inquiry. We cannot insist and force the petitioner to prosecute this petition. We have no option but to allow the application for withdrawal or dismissal of the petition as not pressed. But, in order to discover the truth, in our opinion, the case deserves thorough probe in a duly conducted inquiry through the Director General of Police, M.P., who is the Head of the Department. He may himself hold an inquiry or get an inquiry conducted through his duly appointed nominee competent for the purpose. The Registry is directed to transmit the photocopies of all the proceedings taken in this case alongwith all documents and Annexures with the pleadings of the parties to the Director General of Police M.P. A copy of the order passed by us be also sent to the Director General of Police for necessary inquiry and action. The Registry is directed to transmit the photocopies of all the proceedings taken in this case alongwith all documents and Annexures with the pleadings of the parties to the Director General of Police M.P. A copy of the order passed by us be also sent to the Director General of Police for necessary inquiry and action. The Director General of Police, after completing the inquiry, shall submit a report to this Court within 4 months from today. The case is consigned to record-room. A separate Misc. Criminal Case be registered and be listed alongwith the original record of this case before the Court on expiry of 4 months or on receipt of the report of inquiry from the Director General of Police, whichever is earlier.