ORDER Chandrashekaraiah, J.--The Petitioner in this petition has sought for a writ of mandamus to the Respondents not to break open the door or force their entry into his premises bearing Flat No. S-63, Golden Enclave, Domlur, Bangalore. 2. The Petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No. 63, Golden Enclave, Domlur, Bangalore, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1991. It is averred in the petition that on 16.1.2002, the Sub-Inspector of Police, from Delhi, by name Mr. Jaswinder Singh, attached to Greater Kailash Part 1, Police Station, New Delhi, made an attempt to break open the door of his premises based on the complaint filed by one Sri Sanjay Kumar Jha, registered as FIR No. 378 of 2001, alleging burglary. This has made the Petitioner to file this petition seeking for a direction not to break open the door of his premises and to prevent any forceful entry into the said premises. 3. As seen from the statement of objections filed by Mr. Jaswinder Singh, S.I. of Police, Grater Kailash Police Station Part-1, New Delhi, one Sanjay Kumar Jha lodged a complaint on 27.12.2001, alleging theft of certain papers pertaining to a Court case from the house at B-223, 2nd floor, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. As seen from the FIR produced as Annexure R-1, along with the statement of objections, Mr. Ajit Kumar Jha is the brother of complainant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha. The said Ajit Kumar Jha has filed a case in marriage Court of Smt. Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, Room No. 15, ADJ, in Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, on the charge of adultery against his wife Smt. Nutan Jha for divorce and in the said case evidence is being recorded. Certain letters, photographs, sketches, diaries, etc. which were in possession of his brother Ajit Kumar Jha are required to prove the illicit relation of his wife Smt. Nutan Jha. According to the complainant, he has reason to believe that Smt. Nutan Jha her mother Smt. Prema Jha and father Sri Premnath Jha, residents of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, and her brother Rakesh Jha resident of New Delhi, and one Sri S. Madhav, s/o. K. Madhav, who is said to be the paramour of the wife of Mr. Ajit Kumar Jha, who is residing at Section 63/62, Golden Enclave, Air Port Road, Bangalore-17, are involved in the theft of the abovesaid documents. Ajit Kumar Jha, who is residing at Section 63/62, Golden Enclave, Air Port Road, Bangalore-17, are involved in the theft of the abovesaid documents. In the FIR, it is further stated that as regards the stolen things and other particulars his elder brother Ajit Jha will come and inform. The case was registered under Sections 380 and 457 of Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 378 of 2001. 4. After registering the said case, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Police Sub-Inspector, came to Bangalore, for investigation on 11.1.2002 and sought the assistance of the local police. The Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Bangalore, has filed an affidavit stating that on 11.1.2002, the S.I., of Police, Mr. Jaswinder Singh of Greater Kailash Police Station, New Delhi, gave a written requisition seeking for help of the local police regarding investigation in respect of FIR No. 378 of 2001. Accordingly, he deputed one Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, to assist the SI of Police, New Delhi, as he was not acquainted with the local language and the area in question. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Assistant S.I. of Police was provided on 11.1.2002 and 12.1.2002 and thereafter Mr. Jaswinder Singh has not requested for any assistance from the local police. 5. The Petitioner had filed a counter affidavit stating that Mr. Jaswinder Singh, PSI, had put the lock to his premises and thereby prevented him from entering into his premises. This fact, is not admitted either by Mr. Jaswinder Singh in the statement or by the local police officer. But it is a fact that one Police Constable was posted at Golden Enclave, where the Petitioner is owning a flat. But the explanation given by the local police officers is that it has been done at the request made by the security agencies of Golden Enclave Apartments on the ground that there are many VI Ps and executives. It is not stated that at the request of the VI Ps and executives who are residing in the Golden Enclave Apartment, a Police Constable has always been posted. In the affidavit of Mr. Jaswinder Singh, it is seen that by virtue of Sections 165 and 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has a right to search the premises as part of investigation. From this it is seen that there is an attempt on the part of Mr. In the affidavit of Mr. Jaswinder Singh, it is seen that by virtue of Sections 165 and 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has a right to search the premises as part of investigation. From this it is seen that there is an attempt on the part of Mr. Jaswinder Singh, to enter into the premises of the Petitioner as part of investigation. 6. In order to ascertain whether investigation is required by searching the premises of the Petitioner in the absence of any complaint as against the Petitioner, I called upon the learned Counsel for Respondent-3 to produce the case diary. Accordingly, he produced the case diary. From the case diary, it is seen that one S.I., Mr. Sanjay Sharma is the person who is appointed as Investigating Officer to investigate on the complaint of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha. Further, from the case diary I do not find any order appointing Mr. Jaswinder Singh PSI, to investigate the matter on the complaint of Sri Sanjay Kumar Jha. From the affidavit of the local police I find Mr. Jaswinder Singh had requested for the help of the local police only for two days and thereafter he never requested the local police to assist him during investigation. Both from the statement of objections of Mr. Jaswinder Singh and the affidavit of the local police, it is seen that there is no request to the local officer to cause search in Golden Enclave where the Petitioner is residing. 7. Under Section 165 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 purpose of 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 in charge, 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 writing, as 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. In the instant case, the place where search is to be conducted by Mr. 8. In the instant case, the place where search is to be conducted by Mr. Jaswinder Singh is in Golden Enclave Apartment, Bangalore, which is not within the limits of police station of Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Therefore, if any search is to be made is only as provided under Section 166 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 166, an Officer in charge of a Police Station, or a Police Officer making an investigation may require an officer in charge of another police station, whether in the same or a different District, to cause a search to be made in any place, in any case. 9. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 166, an Officer on being so required, shall proceed according to the provisions of Section 165, and shall forward the thing found, if any, to the officer at whose request the search was made. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 166, whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of another police station to cause a search to be made under Sub-section (1) might result in evidence of the commission of an offence being concealed or destroyed, it shall be lawful for an officer in charge of a police station making any investigation to search or cause to be searched, any place in the limits of another police station in accordance with the provisions of Section 165, as if such place were within the limits of a Police Station. In the instant case the Investigating Officer, as found in the case diary, is one S.I., Sanjay Sharma. Mr. Jaswinder Singh is not an Officer in charge of the Police Station of Greater Kailash, No. 1, and there is no order by the competent police officer authorising Mr. Jaswinder Singh to investigate the alleged offence. No doubt the offence under Section 380 read with Section 457, Indian Penal Code are cognizable offence. If that is so, if at all if there is any search, the search should be either by the Officer in charge of the Police Station or an authorised Police Officer, who is not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector. Therefore, the very investigation by Mr. Jaswinder Singh, and in the guise of investigation any attempt made to enter the premises of the Petitioner for search is wholly unauthorised and illegal. 10. Therefore, the very investigation by Mr. Jaswinder Singh, and in the guise of investigation any attempt made to enter the premises of the Petitioner for search is wholly unauthorised and illegal. 10. As stated earlier even assuming that Mr. Jaswinder Singh is authorised to investigate and search, he is required to request the local police officer to cause a search of any place in the limits of another police station. 11. In the case on hand, Mr. Jaswinder Singh has only requested police help and has not requested the Police Officer to cause a search. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of Code of Criminal Procedure, no doubt authorises the Investigating Officer to search or cause to be searched provided there is any reason to believe that the delay occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of another police station to cause search to be made as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 166 might result in evidence of the commission of an offence being concealed or destroyed. In the case diary no reasons are stated for Mr. Jaswinder Singh himself to search. Further as found in the statement of objections he came to Bangalore on 11.1.2002. Till the filing of the writ petition i.e., 17.1.2002, nothing has taken place. The gap between 11.1.2002 and 17.1.2002, itself discloses that there is no reason for Mr. Jaswinder Singh to believe that the delay may come in the way of investigation if search being made by the local officer in whose area the premises is located. 11. From the facts, it is seen that there is a dispute between the husband and the wife in the marriage Court for divorce. The complainant who gave first information is the brother of the Petitioner before the Marriage Court. In the FIR he has not disclosed what are all the documents which were stolen. On the other hand he has stated that his brother will inform regarding the particulars of letters, photographs and other documents which are said to have been stolen. The further allegation in the FIR is Smt. Nutan Jha is residing with one S. Madhav (Sanjeev Madhav) at No. S-63/62, Golden Enclave, Airport Road, Bangalore-17 (Karnataka). There are no allegations as against the Petitioner i.e., Sri Thattakat Kunjiram Madhav admittedly who is the owner of the premises in question. From the information collected by Mr. The further allegation in the FIR is Smt. Nutan Jha is residing with one S. Madhav (Sanjeev Madhav) at No. S-63/62, Golden Enclave, Airport Road, Bangalore-17 (Karnataka). There are no allegations as against the Petitioner i.e., Sri Thattakat Kunjiram Madhav admittedly who is the owner of the premises in question. From the information collected by Mr. Jaswinder Singh from the Administrator of Golden Enclave, Bangalore, it is seen that Sri T.K. Madhav is the owner of the property. Therefore, in the absence of any reasonable grounds for the Police Officer to believe that these documents are kept in the house of the Petitioner, it is not appropriate to enter the said house that too when there are no allegations in the F.I.R., as against him, even assuming that Sri Sanjeev Madhav and Nutan Jha are residing in the said house. 13. From the case diary it is seen that the PSI had written a letter dated 12.1.2002, to the Manager of Union Bank of India, Bangalore, calling upon him to produce the following details of bank accounts of the following persons: 1) Sri T.K. Madhav and Sanjeev Madhav; 2) Statement of account for the last six months; 3) Copies of the account opening forms. 14. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, had already written another letter to the Principal, Vidya Shilpa Academy, Yelahanka, Bangalore, calling upon him to give the details of documents of student by name Adish Jha in respect of: 1) Details of his parents along with their addresses and local guardians if any; 2) Present and permanent address of the student; 3) Details of his fees payments, etc. 4) The admission form of the student; 5) The mode of transport the child uses and the name and address of the transporter. If really the investigation relates to theft or burglary of certain letters, documents, etc., it is not known what is the need for the PSI to write letters to the Manager of the Bank of India and to the Principal of the School to know the details of accounts of Sri T.K. Madhav and Sanjeev Madhav and also the details regarding the student Adish Jha, said to be the child of Ajit Jha and Nutan Jha. These particulars are not at all required for the purpose of investigation of the case relating to the theft or burglary. 15. These particulars are not at all required for the purpose of investigation of the case relating to the theft or burglary. 15. From these materials which are found in the case diary, it can be said that the purpose of investigation and the search by the Delhi Police in the premises of the Petitioner is only to collect evidence at the behest of the complainant in order to use it as an evidence in the case filed by his brother Ajit Jha against his wife. This is clearly an abuse of the process of law and interferes with the privacy of the citizen against whom there is no complaint and there is no reasonable ground for the Police Officer to believe that the alleged documents, if any are kept in his house. 16. From the statement of objections of Mr. Jaswinder Singh, it is seen that he made an attempt to search the premises of the Petitioner as a part of the investigation under Sections 165 and 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the statement of objections, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, has not disclosed the fact of filing an application or to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, for issue of search warrant for breaking open the lock of the Petitioner's premises under Section 94 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But in the case diary, I find the copy of the application prepared. It is not known whether in fact the said application has been filed in the Court of Magistrate, Mayo Hall, for a search warrant. When there is no complaint whatsoever as against the Petitioner in the FIR, it is just and necessary for the concerned police to obtain a search warrant as required under Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure in order to enter the premises for search if any during investigation. But in this case, all the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, providing for investigation have been thrown to the wind. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1997 SC 568 , has held that right to privacy is part of right to life and personal property enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the attempt made by Mr. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1997 SC 568 , has held that right to privacy is part of right to life and personal property enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the attempt made by Mr. Jaswinder Singh, PSI to enter the premises of the Petitioner in the absence of any order of the Court or in the absence of any reasonable grounds to believe that the stolen articles are kept in the house of the Petitioner is virtually interfering with the right of privacy of the Petitioner which is guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , has stated under what circumstances, the High Court can interfere with the process of investigation under Article 226 of Constitution or under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and has further held the power could be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In the instant case I have held the very search or cause to search in the place where the Petitioner is residing is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, it is one such rarest of rare cases which warrants interference by this Court. 19. The illegal act of the Police Officer in attempting to enter the premises of the Petitioner without any order of the Court, has caused damage to the reputation of the Petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the 3rd Respondent shall be made to pay cost to the Petitioner. 20. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by Respondent-3 to the Petitioner within three months from today; 21. Direction is issued to the Respondents not to break open and force any entry into the premises of the Petitioner bearing flat No. S-63, Golden Enclave, Airport Road, Bangalore, except in accordance with law.