JUDGMENT A. Hazarika, J. 1. Petitioners herein three in number from the same family have approached this Court under Article226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus for a direction to the Respondent No. 5 and other police personnel not to harass the petitioners in the name of investigation in connection with Bomdila P.S. Case No. 4 of 2007 and for a further direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct an enquiry in regard to the signature taken in the stamp papers from the petitioner No. 2 for preparing an agreement forcibly with a prayer to protect the lives and property of the petitioners from the hands of respondent Nos. 5 to 10. 2. To understand the case of the petitioners from the pleadings set forth in the writ petition, a brief of facts in a nutshell is depicted hereunder: a) The Investigating Officer who belongs to Arunachal Pradesh alongwith other police personnel came to the residence of the petitioners at Ambikagirinagar, Zoo Road, Guwahati-24 on 1.3.2007 at about 12:30 A.M. in connection with Bomdila P.S. Case No. 4 of 2007 and searched their residence in absence of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner No. 3 is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner No. 3 was asked about the whereabouts of his elder brother Ajoy Kumar Talukdar, who in response to such query replied that his brother lived separately and was in Delhi at present and hence his whereabouts was not known to him. As he failed to provide the whereabouts of Ajoy Kumar Talukdar, the Respondent No. 5 threatened him to arrest in connection with Bomdila P.S. case as mentioned hereinabove. b) Thereafter the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) alongwith other police personnel used to visit their residence frequently and threatened them with dire consequences if they would not divulge the truth in regard to whereabouts of their son/brother Ajoy Talukdar who is involved in the commission of crime with Bomdila P.S. Case No. 4 of 2007. Petitioners later on came to know that on the basis of an FIR lodged by respondent No. 7, aforesaid P.S. case was registered at Bomdila Police Station. Petitioners later on came to know that on the basis of an FIR lodged by respondent No. 7, aforesaid P.S. case was registered at Bomdila Police Station. The allegation made in the FIR inter-alia is that one Bijoy Bhatta designated as the Regional Director (NE) of Hutch Company naming the firm as M/s. Hutch India Constructions and Allied Services in the North Eastern region of India called the informant and his friend Sri Kiri Dini Bogum at Luit Hotel, Tezpur, Assam saying that the installation of Towers of Hutch Company would be launched in Arunachal Pradesh and for this a liaison Agent was required. After having series of discussion, the informant was appointed and authorized to lease land and building for installation of Tower and said Bhatta told him to collect Bank Draft of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs) only to be purchased from any Bank of India and security deposit payable at Guwahati Branch against every land and building acquisitioned. Accordingly, the informant started discussion with his friend in West Kameng. During course of discussion some of his friend agreed to offer land and building for installation of Hutch Tower giving security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/-. As Sri Bijay Bhatta has been disappearing since for the last two months therefore, the informant requested the S.P. West Kameng, Bomdila, (to ascertain) where about of said Bhatta. c) The facts further pleaded are that on 13.7.2007 and 16.7.2007 the I.O. alongwith other police personnel once again came to their residence and told them to find out their eldest son/brother or else they would take the petitioner No. 3 to Bomdila Police Station and would take him in custody. It has further been pleaded that the Respondent No. 5 has threatened them to implicate in Arms cases and if necessary he would tell the Army to take the petitioners in their camp at Azara in connection with any extremists case. The I.O. has further directed to search them rented house so that they could sale the house and make payment to the complainant. d) The petitioners have further alleged that once again the police officer came to their residence on 20.7.2007 and asked the petitioner No. 2 to visit Bomdila as directed by the respondent No. 5 and forcibly took the petitioner No. 2 to Bomdila and directed him to stay in a hotel near Tenga Valley Army Camp of Arunachal Pradesh. d) The petitioners have further alleged that once again the police officer came to their residence on 20.7.2007 and asked the petitioner No. 2 to visit Bomdila as directed by the respondent No. 5 and forcibly took the petitioner No. 2 to Bomdila and directed him to stay in a hotel near Tenga Valley Army Camp of Arunachal Pradesh. The said police officer brought some persons to the hotel and they surrounded the petitioner and compelled him to sign in some stamp papers where they had written that the petitioner No. 2 had taken the responsibility that he would repay the amount for which Bomdila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2007 was registered and in fact the petitioner No. 2 was compelled to sign in the papers threatening fear of his life. The said persons thereafter snatched the stamp paper from him and by handing a photocopy directed the petitioner No. 2 to pay the amount within 2 months. Thereafter the petitioner No. 2 somehow escaped from the territory of Arunachal Pradesh and hence alleging police harassment have approached this Court for protection of their lives and property. 3. The Respondent No. 1, the official respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the Respondent No. 5 i.e. Dipankar Mishra, against whom the allegation of harassment has been made, have filed their respective affidavits which would be dealt separately in the subsequent paragraphs. The affidavit in opposition filed by the private respondent Nos. 6 to 10 are also on record. 4. The allegations made in the writ petition has been dealt with by the State of Assam contending inter alia that on 11.7.2007 the Arunachal Pradesh Police has approached its counterpart of State of Assam for necessary help for search and seizure of the residence of the petitioners to which help was accorded and accordingly with the help of Assam Police, the police personnel of Arunachal Pradesh have searched their residence and they were not aware as to whether on any other date police personnel of Arunachal Pradesh went to the residence of the petitioners as alleged. 5. The official respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh in their affidavit denied the allegations of police harassment supporting the case of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 5. 6. 5. The official respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh in their affidavit denied the allegations of police harassment supporting the case of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 5. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 5, he has denied the allegation made by the petitioners against him, relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder: Pr. 13. That while denying the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it is stated that respondent No. 5 is the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid P.S. Case No. 4/07. Pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid case, respondent No. 5 proceeded to Guwahati for further investigation. Since the Respondent No. 5 belongs to Arunachal Pradesh Police Force Cadre, therefore he sought necessary assistance from the Office of Superintendent of Police (City), Kamrup, Guwahati and accordingly assistance from the Office of S.P. (City) was accorded. Since the area where the Bank is located (wherein the cash transaction involving the scam took place) falls under the jurisdiction of Bharalumukh Police Station, Guwahati, so assistance came from the said police station. Respondent No. 5 with the assistance of police personnel from Bharalumukh Police Station collected vital informations in connection with Bomdila P.S. Case No. 4/07. In the course of investigation, while making a visit to the residence of the petitioners, it came to the knowledge of the Respondent No. 5 that Ajoy Kumar Talukdar @ Vijay Bhatta visited his place of residence on 28.2.07 and not on 1.3.07 as stated in the writ petition. While verifying the whereabouts of Ajoy Kumar Talukdar, the deponent was informed by the petitioner No. 3 that Ajoy Kumar Talukdar was residing separately and that at that point of time he was out of station. It is denied that while gathering information in connection with the aforesaid case anyone was threatened or harassed. 7. The allegation in regard to forcibly taking the petitioner No. 2 to Tenga Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, by the police personnel and compelling him to sign in the stamp papers to make an agreement owing the responsibility to pay back the amount involved in the case, the Respondent No. 5 has categorically stated at para 17 as thus: Pr. 17. That the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are denied. 17. That the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are denied. Investigation has revealed that the petitioner No. 2 on his own volition went to Tenga Valley and stayed at hotel 'Aphet' wherein he made an agreement with the victims similar to that of Anjan Kumar Das. Possibly this was done to secure bail for Ajoy Kumar Talukdar. It is reiterated that the Arunachal Pradesh Police had nothing to do with the agreement dated 21.7.07. There are reasons to believe that initially the accused Anjan Kumar Das and later on petitioner No. 2 entered into such agreements with the hope that the same would pacify the victims and reduce the pressure on the accused, in this connection the statements made in paragraph 11 of this affidavit are reiterated. 8. Confronting with such a situation the counsel appearing for the petitioners have referred the agreement dated 21.7.2007 alleged to have been compelled to sign and the power of the police personnel under Chapter-XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure more particularly the power under Section 166 of the Code and submitted that the power exercised by the police personnel of Arunachal Pradesh was not in accordance with the power so vested. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in view of the manner and the procedure prescribed under the Code, the entire exercise is vitiated being illegal and without jurisdiction. Action of the Police Personnel would go to show writ large the harassment meted to the petitioners in the name of investigation in the commission of crime of their son/brother who has been disowned by the writ petitioners. 9. Refuting the argument advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Counsels representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Respondent No. 5 have taken the court to the affidavits filed by them wherein and whereupon the allegations have been denied and have urged that there was no harassment and there being no firm foundation of facts of harassment pleaded, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Heard Ms. M. Dev, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 1, Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, Mr. 10. Heard Ms. M. Dev, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 1, Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, Mr. P.K. Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and Mr. B.D. Konwar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. 11. Considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The facts pleaded and established in the instant case would go to show that in fact, the Arunachal Pradesh Police did visit the residence of the petitioners but only with the assistance of their counterpart in Assam, i.e. Police Personnel of Bharalumukh Police Station on 11.7.2007 and made a search and seizure and except the date as mentioned hereinabove, on no other date did the police of Arunachal Pradesh visit their residence. 12. However, the petitioners apprehend that they may be harassed by the police as their son/brother is involved in Bomdila P.S. Case No. 4 of 2007 under Sections 417/420 IPC. In this context, it needs to be noted that though the police has right to arrest and interrogate any relevant person in connection with the offence alleged in the FIR, the law does not permit any harassment in the name of investigation by the police. Any action on the part of the police official must not be allowed to go beyond the permissible limit and therefore to check the abuse of power, transparency of action and accountability must be fixed on the police officials or else it would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The police must deal with the criminals in an efficient and effective manner to bring to book those who are involved in the crime. The approach of police to investigate the commission of crime should not be allowed to sacrifice basic human values during interrogation and to resort to questionable forms of interrogation and therefore balanced approach is needed to meet the ends of justice. 13. The approach of police to investigate the commission of crime should not be allowed to sacrifice basic human values during interrogation and to resort to questionable forms of interrogation and therefore balanced approach is needed to meet the ends of justice. 13. To sum up the case in hand, the police of Arunachal Pradesh is directed to honour the basic human values at the time of interrogation of the petitioners if at all necessary, so that they may not feel being harassed in the name of investigation, keeping in mind the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India. With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.