( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by a sort of indifference and apathy shown by the Il-Additional judicial magistrate of the First Calss, Rajahmundry, to the complaint made by him against the police, the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 160 of 2002, on the file of l-Town Police Station, rajahmundry, knocked at the doors of this court by filing this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr. P. C') seeking justice. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner set out, in brief, is as under: The petitioner is a businessman residing at Rajahmundry. He was implicated as accused in two petty cases and one case of abduction. A rowdy sheet bearing No. 939 was opened in l-Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, against him. Challenging the opening of the rowdy sheet, he filed Writ Petition No. 2509 of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition ended in dismissal on 8-3-2002. Then, he filed an appeal in W. A. No. 646 of 2002. As the first respondent-Police Officer has been taking sides in property disputes relating to his family at the instance of his rivals and as the petitioner was apprehending that the first respondent- police Officer would wreck vengeance against him for having challenged opening of rowdy sheet, he sought for protection in the above writ appeal proceedings. On 15-4-2002, the division Bench of this Court issued a limited interim order for a duration of about eight weeks directing the police not to harass him. ( 3 ) WHILE so, on 5-5-2002, the police of the first respondent's Station seized his motorcycle. The petitioner apprehending that the police might implicate him in one case or the other, moved for anticipatory bail in crl. M. P. No. 546 of 2002, on the file of the learned Il-Additional Sessions Judge, rajahmundry. The said application was dismissed on 31-5-2002, as a submission was made by the Additional Public Prosecutor that he was not required in that case. Finding the police showing interest in his movements, he again moved for anticipatory bail in crl. M. P. No. 643 of 2002, on the file of the learned Il-Additional Sessions Judge, rajahmundry. The first respondent's station reported before the Court that Crime No. 160 of 2002 was registered against one Kithani Mohan and not against the petitioner, whose name is manepalli Mohan Rao. M. P. No. 643 of 2002, on the file of the learned Il-Additional Sessions Judge, rajahmundry. The first respondent's station reported before the Court that Crime No. 160 of 2002 was registered against one Kithani Mohan and not against the petitioner, whose name is manepalli Mohan Rao. Based on the said submission, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail application. ( 4 ) AS already stated, the Division Bench in w. A. No. 646 of 2002 granted an interim order for a period of eight weeks directing the police not to harass the petitioner. Immediately after the expiration of two months, on 17-6-2002, the first respondent arrested the petitioner and detained him illegally from 17-6-2002 to 5-7-2002. The first respondent abused, beat and tortured the petitioner in the police station. He was also robbed off his valuables on his person. On 5-7-2002, three weeks after illegal detention, the first respondent produced the petitioner in the Court of Il-Additional Judicial magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry, in the very same crime. e. , Cr. No. 160 of 2002, in which the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the submission made on behalf of the police that it was registered not against the petitioner, but against one Kithani Mohan. The petitioner presented a complaint in writing before the learned Magistrate alleging as follows; "on 17-6-2002, at noon time, police of l-Town Police Station, Rajahumundry took me to their station situate at danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. They took away one gold chain, two rings and Titan wrist watch worth Rs. 4,000/- found on my person. At 5. 00 p. m. S..-Murali krishna came. He took me out from lock-up questioning about filing of writ petition in the High Court. He beat indiscriminately with lathi and asked me to settle the family property disputes. Then he put me in lock-up and instructed his subordinates to keep me there (in lock-up) till the injuries healed. They brought me to the Court this day. " The complaint is dated 5-7-2002, On the said complaint, the following endorsement is made by the learned Magistrate: "accused and learned counsel are informed that they are to initiate case by filing complaint. Keep with record. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner alleges that he was examined medically by a Civil Surgeon of district Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry and a report indicating multiple blunt object injuries was given. Keep with record. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner alleges that he was examined medically by a Civil Surgeon of district Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry and a report indicating multiple blunt object injuries was given. He further says that he expected that the learned Magistrate would exercise his powers to investigate into the allegations made against the first respondent- police Officer, but the learned Magistrate thought it fit to advise him to file a private complaint. The petitioner further alleges that on 17-7-2002, he was again arrested by the first respondent-Police Officer as part of continuing harassment in crime No. 324 of 2002 under Section 509 IPC. The petitioner moved a bail application before the learned ll-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Rajahmundry, stating that the case was foisted against him by the Police off icer to wreck vengeance, for presenting the complaint dated 5-7-2002 before the learned Magistrate. In the said bail application, the learned Magistrate made the following order: "heard, Perused the record. Accused was produced along with charge sheet. Only on 5-7-2002 this accused was produced in another crime and he gave a written statement against the police atrocity. In the petition it is alleged that because of that written statement this false case is foisted and prays for release of petitioner on personal bond. Offf ence alleged is bailable. " in the circumstances stated above, the accused shall be released on his personal bond for Rs. 5,000/ -. " ( 6 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate ought to have taken his written complaint presented on 5-7-2002 on file and proceeded according to law instead of directing him to file a private complaint. Therefore, he is pleading before this Court that a suitable order may be passed to secure the ends of justice. ( 7 ) THE question that crops up for consideration is whether the action of the learned Magistrate in directing the petitioner herein to initiate action against the first respondent-Police Officer by filing a private complaint is justified in law? ( 8 ) THE petitioner made very serious allegations against the first respondent-Police officer. He alleges that he was not only detained illegally from 17-6-2002 till he was produced before the Court on 5-7-2002, but was also beaten black and blue and was robbed off with one gold chain and other articles found on his person. ( 8 ) THE petitioner made very serious allegations against the first respondent-Police officer. He alleges that he was not only detained illegally from 17-6-2002 till he was produced before the Court on 5-7-2002, but was also beaten black and blue and was robbed off with one gold chain and other articles found on his person. ( 9 ) ARTICLE 21 and Clauses 1 and 2 of article 22 declare that no person should be deprived of his right or personal obligations except according to procedure established by law and no person arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice and he shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours and he shall not be detained beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate. ( 10 ) WHENEVER allegations of infringement of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of india are made, things cannot be viewed lightly by the Courts. ( 11 ) THE observations of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. Station of Uttar Pradesh are worth mentioning here. The Apex Court held as under: 8. "the horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests. How are we to strike a balance between the two. 9. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first - the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider; of meeting the challenge which mr. Justice Cardozo so forthrightly met when he wrestled with a similar task of balancing individual rights against society's rights and wisely held that the exclusion rule was bad law, that society came first, and that the criminal should not go free because the constable blundered. Justice Cardozo so forthrightly met when he wrestled with a similar task of balancing individual rights against society's rights and wisely held that the exclusion rule was bad law, that society came first, and that the criminal should not go free because the constable blundered. In People v. Defore Justice cardozo observed: "the question is whether protection for the individual would not be gained at a disproportionate loss of protection for society. On the one side is the social need not crime shall be repressed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office. There are dangers in any choice. The rule of the Adams case (People v, Adams) strikes a balance between opposing interests. We must hold it to be law until those organs of government by which a change of public policy is normally effected shall give notice to the courts that change has come to pass. " 10. To the same effect is the statement b Judge Learned Hand, in Fried Re. "the protection of the individual from oppression and abuse by the police and other enforcing officers is indeed a major interest in a free society; but so is the effective prosecution of crime, an interest which at times seems to be forgotten. Perfection is impossible; like other human institutions criminal proceedings must be a compromise. The quality of a nation's civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law. ( 12 ) IN the same decision, the Apex Court issued some requirements to be complied with for effective enforcement of the fundamental Rights guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution. ( 13 ) DEALING with the custodial violence, the supreme Court in the celebrated case d. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal held as under: 9. "the importance of affirmed rights of every human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the fou r walls of a police station or lock up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the fundamental Rights guaranteed by articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of india. The issues are fundamental. 10. "torture" has not been defined in the constitution or in other penal laws. Torture' of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the 'strong' over the 'weak' by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilization. "torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself. " Adriana P. Bartow 11. No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many conventions and Declarations as 'turture' - all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread now than ever before. "custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilization takes a step backward - flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half- mast. 12. "custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilization takes a step backward - flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half- mast. 12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four wails of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law. " ( 14 ) ENLARGING the requirements laid down in Joginder Kumar's case (1 supra), the Apex court in the case of D. K. Basu's (5 supra) laid down the following eleven requirements to be followed by the police: 36. "we, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures: (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handing the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation center or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend of relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the district and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention a soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any, present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health services of the concerned State or union Territory, Director, Health services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and District as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sentto the illegal Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyerduring interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous police board. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous police board. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of Court may be instituted in any High court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the constitution and need to be strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to the other governmental agencies also to which a reference has been made earlier. These requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards and do not detract from various other directions given by the courts from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of the arrestee. ( 15 ) I have given the extracts from the judgments of the Apex Court in extenso only to highlight the paramount importance given by the Apex Court of the land to the enforcement of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution under Articles 21 and 22 and the human rights. The Apex Court laid much emphasis on the change of the out look and attitude of the Courts in matters of this type in state of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder trivedi, in the following words: "the Courts are also required to have a change in their outlook and attitude, particularly in cases involving custodial crimes and they should exhibit more sensitivity and adopt a realistic rather than a narrow technical approach, while dealing with cases of custodial crimes so that as far as possible within their powers, the guilty should not escape so that the victim of the crime has the satisfaction that ultimately the Majesty of Law has prevailed. " ( 16 ) WE are in a land where the law is expected to rule. The constitutional guarantees embodied in the shape of fundamental rights, more particularly, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be allowed to be watered down. " ( 16 ) WE are in a land where the law is expected to rule. The constitutional guarantees embodied in the shape of fundamental rights, more particularly, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be allowed to be watered down. Here is a case where the petitioner alleges that he was beaten and was robbed off gold and other articles on his person by the first respondent-policeofficer, who allegedly has been siding his opponent in the family disputes. Of late, the allegations that the police personnel are arrogating themselves the powers of Civil Courts are becoming rampant. Therefore, the learned magistrate would not have viewed the matter lightly in the way he had dealt with the case, more particularly, when a written complaint was handed over by the accused to him making allegations against the police officer. ( 17 ) SECTION 190 Cr. P. C. , deals with cognizance of offences by Magistrates, which reads as follows: 190. Cognizance of offences by magistrates:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence:- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance undersub-section (1), of such offence as are within his competence to inquire into or try. ( 18 ) DIFFERENT clauses of Section 190 under which cognizance of offence can be taken are alternative and not mutually exclusive. ( 19 ) THE Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of offence not only upon information received from any person other than a police officer, but even on his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. ( 20 ) THE word 'complaint is defined under section 2 (d) Cr. P. C. as under: "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. ( 20 ) THE word 'complaint is defined under section 2 (d) Cr. P. C. as under: "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. ( 21 ) THUS, the definition of the word 'complaint' takes within its ambit an oral complaint also. Therefore, in view of the definition of complaint, even if an oral complaint is made, on facts, which constitute an offence, the Magistrate is bound to act accordingly. ( 22 ) UNDER Section 200 Cr. P. C. , a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. For profit of appreciation, I shall quote the section. 200. Examination of Complainant:- A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses,- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another magistrate under Section 192: provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another magistrate under Section 192 and examining the complainant and the witnesses, the later Magistrate need not reexamine them. ( 23 ) THE complaint presented in this case is a self-contained one, wherein all the facts necessary to constitute one offence or the other are mentioned. When such a complaint has been presented under the provisions of section 202 Cr. ( 23 ) THE complaint presented in this case is a self-contained one, wherein all the facts necessary to constitute one offence or the other are mentioned. When such a complaint has been presented under the provisions of section 202 Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate has two options; one is to postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Off icer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Section 202 Cr. P. C. , which lays down the procedure, is as under: 202. Postponement of issue of process:- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance, or which has been made overto him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnevsses present (if any), have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: provided that if it appears to the magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-sec. (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have forthe investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station, except the power to arrest without warrant. ( 24 ) SECTION 203 Cr. (3) If an investigation under sub-sec. (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have forthe investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station, except the power to arrest without warrant. ( 24 ) SECTION 203 Cr. P. C. empowers the magistrate to dismiss the complaint if he comes to the opinion, after considering the statements on oath, of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr. P. C. that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter, he shall dismiss the complaint by recording reasons there for, otherwise he has to proceed with the matter by issuing process under Section 204 Cr. P. C. It may be noted here that Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. also lays down that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr. P. C. may order an investigation. Section 156 Cr. P. C. runs as under: 156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case:- (1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this Section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. ( 25 ) THE provisions of Section 156 (3) have to be read along with Section 190 Cr. P. C. Thus, when a complaint containing all the facts necessary to constitute an offence is presented the learned Magistrate can inquire himself or order investigation. But in the present case, the learned Magistrate, though the complaint contained all the facts necessary to constitute one offence or the other, neither enquired himself into he matter nor ordered investigation. ( 26 ) THUS, the act of the learned Magistrate in not acting upon the complaint, as contemplated under the provisions of Cr. But in the present case, the learned Magistrate, though the complaint contained all the facts necessary to constitute one offence or the other, neither enquired himself into he matter nor ordered investigation. ( 26 ) THUS, the act of the learned Magistrate in not acting upon the complaint, as contemplated under the provisions of Cr. P. C. , amounts to abdication of power and the grievance of the petitioner is a sustainable one where this court can step in under the provisions of Section 482 Cr. P. C. , to remedy the situation and to secure the ends of justice. ( 27 ) IT may not be out of place here to make mention of a Division Bench decision of this court in M. Sudhakar v. Sub-Inspector of police. The Division Bench was dealing with a Habeas Corpus writ petition. What a magistrate has to do when an illegal detention is brought to his notice, is dealt by their lordships, in the following terms: "but, what is the Magistrate to do when it is brought to his notice that without his 'authority', a person arrested is being held in police custody for more than 24 hours? Is he helpless? Can he not take any steps for enforcing the constitutional guarantee? It is there no way he can enforce his "authority" to prevent the infringement of a fundamental right? In other words, is the "authority" conferred upon by him by the constitution? unenforceably? Can he not call upon the concerned police officers to state before him whether they have arrested a particular person, and if so, where is he now and why is he not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours? We are of the considered opinion that the magistrate is not helpless in the matter. Whenever a complaint is received that a person has been arrested within his jurisdiction more than 24 hours earlier but has not been produced before a magistrate or a complainant is made that a person is being detained within his jurisdictionbeyond 24 hours of his arrest, he can, and should call upon the concerned police officer to state, in the form of an affidavit? Whether the allegations made by the complainant are true, and if so, on what and under whose authority he is being so held? Whether the allegations made by the complainant are true, and if so, on what and under whose authority he is being so held? The police officer or other authority, as the case may be, shall have to state whether he has made the arrest, and if so, where is the person arrested now, or whether such person is being detained by him or by his subordinates. The officers must be able to and must file such an affidavit within a day, or two, since the required information is available with themselves, or can be gathered within a few hours. They must also produce the arrested person before the magistrate forthwith, if not already produced before another magistrate. The Magistrate shall thereupon either pass orders setting the arrested person at liberty, or pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and the facts of the case - as he is indeed bound to do; (Madhu Limaye In re: (1)AIR1969s. C. 1014/1019 ). If the arrest of detention is denied and the complainant disputes the same, the magistrate can also make an enquiry into the disputed question and pass appropriate orders. 8. We may clarify an aspect. If the complainant knows or says that the person is being detained in a particular place, the Magistrate can always issue a search warrant as contemplated by section 97, Cr. P. C. The power under section 97 is independent of, and distinct from the procedure and power devised by us as being implicit in and flowing from clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 22 of the constitution. 9. Another aspect: If a police officer or other authority called upon to file a counter-affidavit refuses to file an affidavit, he will be guilty of criminal contempt of court within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The definition of 'criminal contempt' reads as follows:- "2. 9. Another aspect: If a police officer or other authority called upon to file a counter-affidavit refuses to file an affidavit, he will be guilty of criminal contempt of court within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The definition of 'criminal contempt' reads as follows:- "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) xx xx (b) xx xx (c) "criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalizes of tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court: or (ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings: or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. . . . . . . . . . . . " without doubt, the refusal to file an affidavit, or filing a false affidavit interferes, or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding, or at any rate, interferes ortends to interfere with the administration of justice, as ordained by the Constitution. In case such a situation arises, it has to be dealt with in accordance with the Contempt of courts Act, 1971, in addition to other criminal or Civil action as may be permissible in law. " however, their Lordships held at the end that the above procedure cannot be an alternative to the remedy of Habeas Corpus. But, here I am dealing with a case where the detenu himself when he was produced before the court complained of ill-treatment meted out to him at the hands of police, further alleging that he was robbed off some articles also. The complaint comprises of all the facts to constitute one or more offences. Then the procedure open to the Magistrate is to act under the provisions of Cr. P. C. , pointed out supra, but he has not acted underthe provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. I would like to end this order b quoting from the Division bench decision in M. Sudhakar's case (7 supra) which is a follows: 14. Then the procedure open to the Magistrate is to act under the provisions of Cr. P. C. , pointed out supra, but he has not acted underthe provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. I would like to end this order b quoting from the Division bench decision in M. Sudhakar's case (7 supra) which is a follows: 14. Before we part with this matter, it would be appropriate to recall the following words of Land Denning on "the role of the police":- "in safeguarding our freedoms, the police play a vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well- disciplined force of police whom it can trust; and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justiqe. The Police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants. But, so long as they act honourably and properly, all honest citizens should support them to the uttermost. There is nothing more detrimental to the rule of law than for the kidnappers to extract his ransom and get clear; forthe muggerto smash up old ladies and go free or for the company director to defraud the shareholders and get away with it. One of the most disturbing features of life in our time is the way wrong doers seek to discredit the guardians of the peace. If hooligans demonstrate in the street, lie down in the high way and obstruct it, whenever they are removed there is the cat-call, 'police brutality'. If a man makes a statement to the police and it is given in evidence in the court, as often as not he will turn round an say it was extracted by threats or was made up, or that he was framed. . . . . . . . . . " (The Due Process of Law, Page 102) we respectfully agree with the above statement, which neatly puts forward both the view-points. We must, however, add that the police will not be heard to say that they cannot fully or properly investigate, or detect a crime unless they commit another crime. . . . . . . . . . " (The Due Process of Law, Page 102) we respectfully agree with the above statement, which neatly puts forward both the view-points. We must, however, add that the police will not be heard to say that they cannot fully or properly investigate, or detect a crime unless they commit another crime. Detaining a person beyond 24 hours is a crime punishable under Section 342, IPC (wrongful confinement ). It is no part of the duty of a police officer to commit violations of law, much less a crime, in discharge of his official duties. We are of the considered opinion that, taking any other view will put the very Rule of law in peril. "in a Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously, if the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt of law it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy" (said Brandies J. , of the u. S. Supreme Court ). True it is that this view may be found inconvenient, or uncomfortable by some in authority, but they should remember that cutting corners is no way to run a democracy, or to uphold the rule of law. 15. To quote Robert Jockson, holding the balance between liberty and authority is "perhaps the most delicate, difficult and shifting of all balances which the court is expected to maintain, but hold it we must. That is our duty that is the trust reposed in us by the Constitution. " ( 28 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed, directing the learned magistrate to dispose of the complaint dated 5-7-2002 presented before him, in accordance with law bearing in mind the statement of law enunciated above. .