S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH the present writ petition the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus upon the officers of the police station at Tindwari, district Banda, for directing them not to harass the petitioner or his family members by making any raid or search in the late hours of the night. The further prayer was made for a command upon the first three respondents to take action against Sri Bansi Lal Savita, the then Station House Officer, Tindwari, Banda, after an enquiry by C. B. C. I. D. in the matter. The petitioner also prayed for adequate compensation for unnecessary inroads into his privacy by the aforesaid Bansi Lal Savita without any reason. ( 2 ) BEREFT of the unnecessary details, it was the case of the petitioner that he was a respectable agriculturist of the area and certain persons were having some ill-feeling against him and they tried to take over forcible possession of some land of the petitioner. A report was made to the Tindwari police station on 23-9-95, but no action was taken. A civil suit was also filed by him praying for an injunction against the wrongdoers. After service of the notice in the civil suit, a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the spot. Still then these persons continued with their forcible measures. These wrongdoers were allegedly in collusion with the Station House Officer of Tindwari and the police officer insisted that the matter should be compromised and the civil suit should be withdrawn, to which the petitioner did not agree. He was threatened with implication in some or the other criminal case. It was asserted that on 15-11-1995 in the late hours of the night the respondent Bansi Lal Savita raided the house of the petitioner without any justification and had, thus, affected his fundamental rights. A report was made on the next day to the higher police officers against Sri Savita and this also enraged the entire police machinery. A copy of the complaint dated 16-11-1995 was also sent to the DIG and, subsequently, to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The son of the petitioner also sent an application by registered cost to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, in respect of the illegal raid. When no redress could be had, the present writ petition was filed. A copy of the complaint dated 16-11-1995 was also sent to the DIG and, subsequently, to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The son of the petitioner also sent an application by registered cost to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, in respect of the illegal raid. When no redress could be had, the present writ petition was filed. ( 3 ) ON the date of presentation of the writ petition, the Division Bench desired that an affidavit should come as to why no FIR was being registered and as to how illegal raids were made in the late hours of the night in the residence of the petitioner. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit was filed which was sworn by Sri Bansi Lal Savita. It was stated that the petitioner had never approached the police station to lodge any FIR concerning trespass into his land. It was also stated that there was no occasion for this police officer to require a compromise between the parties or to threaten the petitioner to the effect that, if no compromise was arrived at he would prosecute him falsely. As regards the alleged raid, it was stated in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit that one Ram Swaroop, a member of a Scheduled Caste community, gave an application on 13-11-1995 to the police station Tindwari to the effect that Indrajit Singh and Ramesh Singh, who were his enemies, had brought and kept an illegal unlicensed gun with a view to commit his murder. Only on this report, the police raided the house of the petitioner on 15-11-1995 and conducted a search. But by that time Ramesh Singh and Indra Singh had left the place and could not be traced. It was asserted that it was lawful for the police officer to make a search. It was denied that the alleged complaint of Ram Swaroop was only a got-up document only to provide a defence in the case. ( 5 ) A copy of the alleged report of Ram Swaroop had been annexed to the counter-affidavit of Sri Savita. It was asserted that it was lawful for the police officer to make a search. It was denied that the alleged complaint of Ram Swaroop was only a got-up document only to provide a defence in the case. ( 5 ) A copy of the alleged report of Ram Swaroop had been annexed to the counter-affidavit of Sri Savita. In his short application to the Station Officer of Tindwari Police Station, Ram Swaroop had allegedly indicated that he was a cultivator and Ramesh Singh and Indrajit Singh, both sons of Sharda Singh, and one Shiv Prasad Singh had enmity with him due to lands and they had brought a gun with a view to murder him and were waiting for a chance. The gun was with Shiv Prasad. This report was scribed by one Balbir Singh and bears the thumb-impression of Ram Swaroop and it was received at the police station on 13-11-1995, as per endorsement of the police officer. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing of the matter, we had called for the general diary register of the concerned police station. The general diary does not indicate initiation of any case on the basis of the report of Ram Swaroop, nor is there any entry regarding receipt of the report itself. The general diary also does not indicate that in pursuance to this report a raid was made in the house of Sharda Singh. His two sons were named in the report no doubt, but the gun that was allegedly brought for the murder of Ram Swaroop was lying not with the sons of Sharda Singh but with one Shiv Prasad. There is no indication in the report if Shiv Prasad was living in the house of Sharda Singh. ( 7 ) FOR conducting a search the law is clear as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police has a general power of search under Section 165 (1), Cr. P. C. and we may quote the provision thereof :"165. There is no indication in the report if Shiv Prasad was living in the house of Sharda Singh. ( 7 ) FOR conducting a search the law is clear as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police has a general power of search under Section 165 (1), Cr. P. C. and we may quote the provision thereof :"165. Search by police officer.- (1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is incharge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station. " ( 8 ) IT appears from the text of this section that the search could be made by an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation. He could do so only on being satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of investigation into any offence may be found in any place within the limits of the concerned police station and that such thing cannot, in his opinion, be otherwise obtained without undue delay. The law further requires that when such officer is so satisfied, he would record in writing the grounds of his belief and specify in such writing the thing for which search is to be made and then only he could proceed for the search. This section in sub-section (4) further requires that a search under this section is to be made as far as practicable, according to the general provision of search as indicated in Section 100, Cr. P. C. , and that provision requires that when search is to be made the officer conducting the search shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality. P. C. , and that provision requires that when search is to be made the officer conducting the search shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality. Section 100 further requires that if an officer proposes to enter into any house, the occupants are to allow him free ingress thereto and afford all reasonable facilities for the search and if such ingress is not obtained, as required, then the provisions of Section 47 (2), Cr. P. C. would apply. That sub-section requires that if any such place is an apartment in the actual occupancy of a female, not being the person to be arrested, and who does not appear in public, the police officer shall, before entering such apartment, give notice to such female that she was at liberty to withdraw and would afford her every reasonable facility for withdrawal. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, there has been a flagrant violation of the above provisions of law. Admittedly, there was no registration of any FIR and the visit of the police officer to the house of the petitioner cannot be described as having been made in the course of an investigation. When it was not in course of an investigation, the search could have been made after recording in writing the grounds of the belief of the police officer as to why search was necessary. He was further required to record his reasons that unless the search was made without delay, there was possibility of concealment of the material to be searched out. The report was allegedly made on 13-11-1995 and the raid was admittedly made on 15-11-1995. Prima facie, there was no urgency for the raid on 15-11-1995 even if there had been any on 13-11-1995. It has been indicated that in the general diary entry neither the report of Ram Swaroop was entered nor was there any entry that the police officer was proceeding to make any search nor do we find any entry concerning his return after the futile search. It is also required that whenever any search is made, a paper is to be prepared even if it is a case of no seizure. No such report was prepared nor any respectable citizen of the locality was called as required under Section 100 (2) of the Cr. It is also required that whenever any search is made, a paper is to be prepared even if it is a case of no seizure. No such report was prepared nor any respectable citizen of the locality was called as required under Section 100 (2) of the Cr. P. C. There is nothing on record to indicate that before entering into the house of the petitioner, the female inmates were given any chance of withdrawal from the place. ( 10 ) IT must, therefore, be held that the action of Mr. Savita, the concerned Station House Officer, was arbitrary and we may not hesitate to say that it was mala fide. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the police officer might have failed in his legal duties to record certain facts but there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction to make the search, rather it was his duty to conduct the search as possession of illegal arms was complained of. The mala fide looms large from that fact that immediate action was not taken on the report of Ram Swaroop and it may not be ruled out that the report was obtained afterwards. ( 11 ) WE accordingly direct that for the humiliations caused to the petitioner by the illegal and unwanted search, which was an invasion on his privacy, the concerned police officer must be asked to pay a compensation, which may act as some solace to the injured feeling of the citizen (petitioner) and, at the same time, may act as a warning to the errant police officers who choose to do whatever they like without any regard to the provisions of law. The respondent No. 5, Sri Banshi Lal Savita, then posted as the Station Officer, police station Tindwari, district Banda, is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000. 00 to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from today, failing which the CJM of the district concerned will realise the said compensation as an arrears of fine and pay to the petitioner. A copy of this order may be sent to the CJM concerned for compliance. 5,000. 00 to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from today, failing which the CJM of the district concerned will realise the said compensation as an arrears of fine and pay to the petitioner. A copy of this order may be sent to the CJM concerned for compliance. ( 12 ) WE may not direct registration of a case against the police officer of any investigation into the matter as, in our view, the order of payment of compensation, as aforesaid, would meet the ends of justice so far the present dereliction on the part of the concerned police officer, respondent No. 5 is concerned. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, we dispose of this petition. Order accordingly. .