Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Counsel. 2. This case was filed today and a mention was made by Sri Sanjai Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners when our Bench assembled after lunch that the matter is extremely urgent. After hearing the submission of Sri Sanjay Kumar, we agreed with him that the matter is urgent and hence we informed learned A. G. A. , Sri A. K. Tripathi that we will hear the case at 3. 30 p. m. today itself in view of the urgency in the matter and at that time the S. H. O. of P. S. Civil Lines, Allahabad should be present before us alongwith the lady petitioners in this case. At 3. 30 p. m. when the case was taken up, the S. H. O. , P. S. Civil Lines, Sri Suresh Panwar appeared before us but without the petitioners. We then directed that the case will be taken up at 4. 30 p. m. in our chambers and at that time Sri Suresh Panwar should produce the lady petitioners before us. The case was taken up at 4. 45 p. m. in chambers when Sri Sanjai Kumar, learned Counsels for the petitioner, Sri R. P. Dubey, learned Government Advocate and Sri A. K. Tripathi, Additional Government Advocate, Sri Mool Bihari Saxena who was appointed by us as amicus curiae in this case were present before us. Smt. Suneeta Goswami and Smt. Amita Goswami the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also appeared before us and we decided to record their statements. They were weeping when they appeared before us. 3. Smt. Suneeta Goswami, who appears to us to be a respectable middle class lady states that on 18-4- 2002 at about 8 p. m. the petitioners 1 to 4 and their mother-in-law Smt. Sushma Goswami were at their residence 369 Colonelganj, Allahabad. The husband of Smt. Sushma Goswami is a businessman who does construction work and the husbands of petitioners 1 to 4 also do business alongwith him. At about 8 p. m. on 18-4-2002 several policemen in 3-4 jeeps came to the petitioners residence and started shouting and they beat the door of the petitioners house. The aforesaid policemen demanded that Smt. Sushma Goswami be produced before them. At about 8 p. m. on 18-4-2002 several policemen in 3-4 jeeps came to the petitioners residence and started shouting and they beat the door of the petitioners house. The aforesaid policemen demanded that Smt. Sushma Goswami be produced before them. When the petitioners 1 and 2 told the police people that their mother-in-law is a heart patient and she could not come down from first floor and second floor where all the family resides, the police people said that even if Smt. Sushma Goswami dies yet she must be produced before the police. The police people then disconnected the electricity supply of the petitioners house due to which there was darkness in the house. The petitioner then lit candles. At that time there were no male members of the family at the residence. The police then enquired where the male members were. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 replied that they had gone to business in the morning and they did not know about their whereabouts. The petitioners husbands usually go for work in the morning and comeback in the night. The police people then started taking search of the almirahs etc. They threatened that they will break all the things in the house unless they were given the whereabouts of the male members. At that time a telephone call of the brother of Smt. Sushma Goswami came from Delhi and for a very short time she could talk of her brother. However, the police snatched the telephone and misbehaved with her and thereafter disconnected the telephone. They then demanded photographs of the petitioners husbands. Thereafter some other police including lady police took away the petitioners 1 to 4 and Smt. Sushma Goswami from their residence to the police station, Mahila Thana, Civil Lines, Allahabad. When the petitioners stated that milk has to be purchased for the six months old child of petitioner No. 4 the police refused to permit that. All the five ladies were kept in the police station in the night of 18/19-4-2002 during which they were interrogated. The police threatened that kurki will be done at the petitioners home. 4. The petitioners 1 to 4 and Smt. Sushma Goswami were kept at the police station for about 24 hours i. e. , from about 8 p. m. on 18-4-2002 to about 8 p. m. on 19-4-2002 when they were released for a short while. The police threatened that kurki will be done at the petitioners home. 4. The petitioners 1 to 4 and Smt. Sushma Goswami were kept at the police station for about 24 hours i. e. , from about 8 p. m. on 18-4-2002 to about 8 p. m. on 19-4-2002 when they were released for a short while. Thereafter again on the same day i. e. , on 19-4-2002 at 11-11. 30 p. m. the police party came to the petitioners residence and threatened the petitioners and posted police at the premises. 5. Thereafter on 20-4-2002 at about 1. 30 p. m. the police party again came to the residence of the petitioners and took away the petitioners No. 1 to 4 and their mother-in-law to P. S. Civil Lines and the petitioners were kept in the police station from that time onwards till today morning i. e. , 22-4-2002 at about 11. 30 a. m. when they were released. Thus the petitioners 1 to 4 and their mother-in-law were kept in the police station on three nights, that is on the night of 18/19-4-2002, 20/21 and 21/22-4-2002. They have been threatened that today also they shall be taken back to the police station. 6. The petitioner No. 1 states that she is a graduate from Bombay University and the petitioner No. 2 is a graduate from Kanpur University. The petitioners 3 and 4 are at their residence. 7. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 and Smt. Sushma Goswami are not named in any FIR nor are they implicated as an accused in any statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. or otherwise in any criminal case. 8. Learned Government Counsel has shown us a First Information Report dated 18-4-2002 filed by one Sheo Babu Srivastava alleging that on the same date i. e. , 18-4-2002 at about 6. 15 p. m. , his son-in-law Manoj Kumar Srivastava, who is an employee in the A. D. A. was shot dead by Manoj Kumar Goswami. 9. We are informed that a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has also been filed in this Court on behalf of Ajai Nath Goswami alias Lallan Goswami and his four sons. That application is likely to be taken up for hearing by another Court tomorrow. Hence, we are not concerned with the same. 10. 9. We are informed that a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has also been filed in this Court on behalf of Ajai Nath Goswami alias Lallan Goswami and his four sons. That application is likely to be taken up for hearing by another Court tomorrow. Hence, we are not concerned with the same. 10. In our opinion the action taken by the police towards petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and their mother-in-law was totally unjustified. It seems that the police were trying to know the whereabouts of the accused Lallan Goswami and his sons but the manner in which they went about it is highly objectionable. 11. We live in a free and democratic country but it seems that the police still have the mentality they had during British days. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India every citizen has a right to live in a dignified and civilized manner. If the police wanted to ascertain the whereabouts of any accused from the lady petitioners they should have gone to the residence of the petitioners and interrogated them in a polite manner, but in this case they have acted in a most uncivilized manner cutting of the telephone line and electricity supply of the petitioners and taking away the lady petitioners from their residence and kept them in the police station for three nights, which is disgraceful. The lady petitioners are educated middle class ladies. They appeared before us and gave their statements and answered our questions in a decent manner, though they were crying. 12. It is high time now that the police must change their behaviour in this country and act as servants of the people instead of their masters. In dealing with such matters they cannot continue the old tradition of using rough and crude techniques. There was no justification to keep the lady petitioners and their mother-in-law in the police station for three nights, and give them threats. 13. In our opinion the method of investigation and interrogation by the police in this country must change in order to be in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that every citizen has a right to live with dignity. 14. 13. In our opinion the method of investigation and interrogation by the police in this country must change in order to be in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that every citizen has a right to live with dignity. 14. In Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949) Justice Frankfurter of the U. S. Supreme Court observed "the security of ones privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society. The knock at the door,whether by day or night as a prelude to a search, without authority of law but solely on the authority of the police, did not need the commentary of recent history to be condemned as inconsistent with the conception of human rights enshrined in the history and the basic Constitutional documents of English speaking peoples. " 15. This decision of the U. S. Supreme Court was followed by our own Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1963 SC 1295 , where it was held that domiciliary visits by the police is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. In D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416 , the Supreme Court directed that interrogation, though essential, must be on scientific principles. Third degree methods are totally impermissible. The Court also remarked that State terrorism is no answer to terrorism or crime. It issued various directives in this connection, which must be followed by the police and other authorities. 17. We would like to add that the method of using the danda or harassment as part of the investigation or interrogation is in fact counter productive, as experience has shown. It has not brought down the number of crimes. The cases of Gulshan Kumar, Jessica Lal, etc. have shown that the real criminals seem to have got away while the small man (who is often innocent) is harassed and put to all kinds of indignities. 18. In Western countries scientific methods of investigation and interrogation are used e. g. , by Scotland Yard or by the F. B. I. The police there use modern scientific methods e. g. , D. N. A. tests and chemical analysis of blood, hair, saliva, semen, etc. 18. In Western countries scientific methods of investigation and interrogation are used e. g. , by Scotland Yard or by the F. B. I. The police there use modern scientific methods e. g. , D. N. A. tests and chemical analysis of blood, hair, saliva, semen, etc. Fingerprints of a suspect are fed into a computer which is connected with a nation-wide network, and in this way in no time it is known whether the suspect has a criminal background. The police in western countries by using these modern methods, do not have to use third degree methods at all. An intelligent interrogator can elicit much information without use of force. However, in our country the police are not trained in scientific investigation, nor are given the modern scientific facilities and instruments, and hence they resort to the time-honoured method of using the danda or harassment during investigation. As already observed above, this method does not solve crimes, and only the poor and small (and often innocent) man is harassed thereby. 19. We were thinking of levying heavy fines against the concerned policemen but Sri Suresh Panwar SHO Civil Lines, and Ms. Ranjana Gupta SI appeared before us and tendered their apology, which we have accepted. However, we warn the entire police force in Uttar Pradesh that they must change their ways of interrogation and start behaving in a civilized manner otherwise they will be severely dealt with by this Court. 20. We further direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 or their mother-in-law in any way any further, and warn them that if they do so they will be severely punished. We make it clear that we are not putting any obstacle in the investigation by the police but we are certainly against the harassment by the police as seems to have been done in this case. The police can interrogate the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 but they may go to the residence of the petitioners in daytime and put any questions politely to ascertain the whereabouts of the accused and/or about the crime. 21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary, the Principal Home Secretary and D. G. P. of the U. P. Government. 21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary, the Principal Home Secretary and D. G. P. of the U. P. Government. The D. G. P. must issue a circular annexing copy of this judgment to all the S. S. Ps. and S. Ps. of all districts in U. P. who in turn must issue similar directions to all the Police Stations in their district to strictly comply with this judgment. 22. The petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of. .