JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the Petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuing a direction to the Respondents to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Fifty Thousand) only as compensation to the Petitioner for torturing him for several hours for 2 days in police custody and also to prosecute the errant police personnel involved in torturing and harassing the Petitioner in a very inhuman manner. 2. Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. K. Jagat, learned G. A. appearing for the Respondents. 3. The factual panorama, in brief, leading to the filing of the present writ petition is recapitulated. The Petitioner has been running a small jewellery shop at Moirang Lamkhai just opposite to the Moirang P. S. in the name and style of "M/s Gandhi Jewellery" and the said jewellery shop is registered under Moirang Municipal Council under the Manipur Municipalities (Registration and Licensing of Shop) Bye Laws 1998. The Petitioner makes gold ornaments of different designs depending on the choice of his customers and in order to make the gold ornaments he used to purchase second hand gold as well as fresh gold from the Imphal Market and he sometime used to purchase second hand gold brought by its owner to his shop as the raw material for making gold ornaments. 4. On 15.4.07 at about 12.05 p.m. two police personnel of Moirang P. S., namely S.I. Nameirakpam Rajen Singh and Havildar R. K. Sanahal Singh (they are not parties in the present writ petition) came to his jewellery shop in a Maruti Car and by that time the Petitioner was preparing to take his lunch. As ordered by the said police personnel, Petitioner accompanied with them for proceeding to Moirang Police Station. At the Moirang Police Station, Petitioner was taken to the room of the Respondent No. 4, Officer in-charge, Moirang P.S. and found that one Konjengbam Sharat Singh, one unknown man and another unknown woman were in the room of the Officer in-charge. In presence of those persons, the Respondent No. 4 asked the Petitioner if one Konjengbam Naoton Singh had sold gold ornament to his jewellery shop. In presence of those persons, the Respondent No. 4 asked the Petitioner if one Konjengbam Naoton Singh had sold gold ornament to his jewellery shop. To that Petitioner replied that in between the last part of the year, 2005 and beginning of the year, 2006 Konjengbam Naoton Singh, his elder sister Konjengbam Sunita Devi and his elder brother Konjengbam Sharat Singh had sold some second hand gold ornaments to his jewellery as owners of the said gold ornaments. 5. Petitioner further states that said second hand gold ornaments were melted again for making various gold ornaments at the desire of his customers and sold to them. At that time, Respondent No. 4 told him that those ornaments were the stolen property and as such Petitioner was forced to put his signature on a paper to the effect that he will refund the said gold ornaments. However, Petitioner expressed his inability to do so, then the Petitioner was taken to another room. 6. After confining a few hours, the Petitioner was again taken to the room of the Respondent No. 4 and he was forced to disclose the exact amount of gold ornaments sold by Konjengbam Naoton Singh and his family; to that Petitioner replied that he could not remember the exact amount of gold sold to him due to lapse of time without referring to his book of records maintained at his shop. The Respondent No. 4 had instructed his subordinate police personnel to seize all the articles of gold jewellery of his shop. Accordingly, it is stated that police personnel of the Moirang P. S. seized some instruments for jewellery work, one Mobile phone, Receipt Book, Cash Book and Record Book without issuing seizure memo. Petitioner, after referring to the Book of record, told the Respondent No. 4 that about 6 tolas of gold were sold at Rs. 53,000/- by Konjengbam Naoton and his family members. 7. In spite of disclosing everything what he knew, the Respondent No. 4 started beating the Petitioner by using a cane stick over his back and also slapped over his face severely and compelled him to spend whole night of 15.4.07 on the floor without providing any food. 53,000/- by Konjengbam Naoton and his family members. 7. In spite of disclosing everything what he knew, the Respondent No. 4 started beating the Petitioner by using a cane stick over his back and also slapped over his face severely and compelled him to spend whole night of 15.4.07 on the floor without providing any food. The Petitioner repeatedly pleaded to the Respondent No. 4 that he was suffering from benign stricture of oesophagus after taking corrosive substances in the year 2003 and as such he required taking semi-solid and liquid diets at regular intervals everyday. On the next day, i.e. 16.4.07 the Petitioner was again taken to the room of the Respondent No. 4 and he was thrashed severely asking to give back the gold ornaments which were sold by Konjengbam Naoton and his family members. The Petitioner was further detained in the Police Station upto 17.4.07 without producing him before the concerned Magistrate's Court and without providing him any food. 8. On 17.4.07 at about 3.30 p.m. Petitioner fainted and collapsed subsequent upon torture inflicted to him without providing him any food. Thereafter, he was taken to Community Health Centre, Moirang by the Police personnel of Moirang P. S. for medical treatment. The police personnel of the Moirang P. S. informed the members of the Petitioner's family about the deteriorating health condition of the Petitioner. The attending Doctor examined the Petitioner after entering necessary entries in the Casualty Registration Book bearing No. 2078/07 and on examination he found bruises over back of neck and inter scapular region of back of the Petitioner. The attending Doctor of the Moirang Community Health Centre referred the Petitioner to Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) for further treatment. Petitioner was left at the RIMS by the police personnel. 9. Having no alternative, Petitioner was admitted to Male Surgical Ward No. III of the RIMS and allotted Bed No. 2 of the said hospital on 17.4.07 and certificate was issued by the Registrar, Department of Surgery, RMS, Imphal that the Petitioner was suffering from benign stricture of oesophagus after taking corrosive substances in 2003 and he could take only semi-solid and liquid diet. On 18.6.07 the Petitioner was put up for surgery for benign stricture of oesophagus due to taking corrosive substance on 18.6.07 and surgery was successfully performed. On 18.6.07 the Petitioner was put up for surgery for benign stricture of oesophagus due to taking corrosive substance on 18.6.07 and surgery was successfully performed. For post operative treatment the Petitioner was in RIMS upto 7.8.07 and he was discharged from the hospital on 8.8.2007. 10. For the unjustified action of the police personnel by putting the Petitioner in their custody for more than 14 hours wrongfully, Km Moirangthem Chaoba Devi, elder sister of the Petitioner, submitted a written complaint to the Respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur District Manipur, on 25.4.07 to take necessary legal action against the police personnel of Moirang P. S. involved in arrest and torture of the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No. 3 did not take any tangible action against the errant police personnel of Moirang Police Statioa Having no alternative, she approached the Manipur Human Rights Commission by filing petition on 8.5.07. 11. The Commissioner had registered a case being MHRC Case No. 19 of 2007 and issued notice to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. In response to the said notice issued by the Manipur Human Rights Commission, the Respondent No. 3, SP/Bishnupur District submitted a false report stating, inter alia, that on 10.4.07 one Smt. Konjengbam Ongbi Shakhi Devi, lodged a written report to the effect that on 4.4.07 at about 9 p.m. she came to know that her gold ornaments worth Rs. 8,80,700/- which were kept in two separate steel Almirahs were found missing. On the next day one boy, namely Konjengbam Naoton Singh, who was employed by her as helper, was found to have run away with the gold ornaments. FIR was registered for investigation and on 15.4.07 the I.O. summoned Shri M. Gandhi Singh for examination and he was not arrested and allowed to go back. He was never harassed nor detained in custody. It is also stated that the Petitioner could not approach Bishnupur District Police Complaint Authority due to non appointment of its Chairperson and Members. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Respondents, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. 12. The Respondents filed affidavit in-opposition categorically denying the allegations and assertions of the Petitioner in the writ petition. Respondents in the affidavit in-opposition stated that on 10.4.07 at about 7.30 p.m. one Smti. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Respondents, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. 12. The Respondents filed affidavit in-opposition categorically denying the allegations and assertions of the Petitioner in the writ petition. Respondents in the affidavit in-opposition stated that on 10.4.07 at about 7.30 p.m. one Smti. Konjengbam (O) Shakhi Devi aged about 65 years, w/o late K. Babudhon Singh of Moirang Bazar lodged a written report with the O.C. Moirang P. S. stating that on 4.4.07 at about 9 p.m. the complainant came to know that her gold ornaments worth Rs. 8,80,700/- which were kept in steel Almirah were found missing. On the next day, Konjengbam Naoton Singh (@ Manihar aged about 20 years, S/o (L) K. Konjengba Singh of Konjengbam Leikai, who was employed by the complainant as a helper, was found missing. The complainant suspected that he (K. Naoton) has stolen the missing gold ornaments. The complainant and members of her family searched the boy, but he was not found elsewhere as he did not return even to his parental home. Finally the complainant came to know that the said K. Naoton Singh had actually stolen the gold ornaments and ran away. 13. The Respondents, in their affidavit in-opposition, stated that on receipt of the report from the complainant, a criminal case was registered being FIR No. 69 (4) 07 MRG P.S. under Section381/120-B IPC for investigation and in the course of the investigation the I.O. could establish the identities of the accomplices of the absconding accused, Konjengbam Naoton Singh @ Manihar and they were identified as -(1) K. Sarat Singh (2) K. Sunita (3) K. Memcha Devi and (4) K. Brojen Singh and accordingly they were formally arrested; at their instance some of the stolen gold ornaments were recovered. Particulars of those gold ornaments are: (a) 4 pieces of gold necklace (Marei Maru Pareng), weighing about 2 1/2- San, 4 Chaning, (2) 1-gold finger ring (Tin Majek) weighing about 1-San including the stone, (3) 1 -gold finger (Bombai Patty) weighing about 2-Sans and 3-Chaning from one of the witnesses namely R.K. Bobi @ Boba Devi (36 years) D/o R. K. Surjamani of Moiraing Lamkhai on 17.4.07 which was sold out by the accused K. Sarat Singh after slight modification of the stolen gold ornaments; (b) 1 (one) pair of ear ring-3 bolls (Makhong Yetpi) weighing about 23-Chaning from accused Sunita Devi on 17.4.07 after slightly modifying the said gold ornament by M. Gandhi Singh (Goldsmith). (c) 1 (one) pair of ear ring- 3 bolls (Makhong Yetpi) weighing about 1 - San and 1 (one) pair of earring -1 boll (Nanappi) weighing about 1/2 San from one witness namely Konjengbam Merina which was modified by one of the witnesses namely Konjengbam Rameshwor Singh of Moirang Bazar (Goldsmith) on 20.4.07. (d) 1 (one) gold finger ring (Grahmapan) without stone inscribed as "Brojen" weighing about 1 - San and 22-Chaning from the accused Brojen and Sunita on 24.4.07 after being given by M. Gandhi Singh (Goldsmith). (e) 1 (one) gold necklace (Thounam Mari Aniphangbi) weighing about 6 -Sans and 9-Chanings from one witness Moirangthem Ibocha Singh on 25.4.07 being given by goldsmith M. Gandhi Singh. (f) 1 (one) Digital Camera (Sony) and 1 (one) set of woofer Speaker system (A-2000) from accused K. Sarat Singh on 27.4.07. These 2 (two) items were purchased by absconding accused Naotomba Singh using the sale proceed of stolen gold ornaments and were handed over to his brother Sarat Singh for use at home. 14. On further investigation of the case, i.e. FIR No. FIR No. 69 (4)07 MRG P.S. under Section381/120-B IPC it was revealed that Moirangthem Gandhi, the present Petitioner, s/o M. Tomba Singh of Ngankhalawai by profession goldsmith used to receive the stolen gold ornament from the absconding accused Konjengbam Naoton Singh and also that the Petitioner instigated the accused to hand over the stolen gold ornament which in turn was sold out to the customer. In order to verify the said fact, the I.O. had summoned the Petitioner for examination on 15.4.07. However, due to want of concrete evidence, he was not arrested and further allowed to go home. In order to verify the said fact, the I.O. had summoned the Petitioner for examination on 15.4.07. However, due to want of concrete evidence, he was not arrested and further allowed to go home. After having sufficient evidence M. Budha Singh, elder brother of Mr. M. Gandhi, was also arrested and remanded in judicial custody in connection with that case. 15. On 17.4.07 the accused person, namely Konjengbam Sarat Singh, (2) Konjengbam Sunita Devi were also arrested in connection with the case and through investigation the involvement of the Petitioner was clear and accordingly on 17.4.07 he was summoned. On examination, the Petitioner revealed that he made one gold necklace for one Moirangthem Radharani Devi of Ngankhalawai out of the stolen gold which she received from the main accused, namely K. Naoton. However, detailed examination could not be completed on that day, i.e. 17.4.07 as the Petitioner started complaining about fatigueness during the examination and taking into consideration of his health condition, the Petitioner was allowed to go with his guardian/family members with direction to appear before the I.O. whenever asked to appear in connection with investigation of the case. The involvement of the Petitioner in that case had been well established. 16. The Petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Hon'ble Court. Since then the Petitioner is absconding to evade police arrest Accordingly, a proceeding under Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure is taken up against him. It is also stated that in order to evade arrest by the Police personnel of Moirang P.S. in connection with said FIR, the Petitioner was admitted in the RIMS for surgery for his said old injuries due to taking corrosive substance in the hospital. While he was in the hospital for medical treatment, he was not arrested as he was under medical treatment. After he was discharged from the hospital and after his anticipatory bail petition was rejected, the Petitioner is absconding. 17. The Respondents further stated in their affidavit in-opposition that on receipt of the application of Km. M. Chaobi Devi, elder sister of the Petitioner on 25.4.07, the Supdt. of Police, in exercise of his power under Section 154(3) Code of Criminal Procedure investigated regarding harassment of the Petitioner by Ningthoujam Mangi Singh. 17. The Respondents further stated in their affidavit in-opposition that on receipt of the application of Km. M. Chaobi Devi, elder sister of the Petitioner on 25.4.07, the Supdt. of Police, in exercise of his power under Section 154(3) Code of Criminal Procedure investigated regarding harassment of the Petitioner by Ningthoujam Mangi Singh. O.C. Moirang Police Station and Nameirakpam Rajen Singh, S.I. Moirang P. S. and since the said complaint concerns with the investigation of the case of FIR No. 69 (4) 07 MRG PS under Section 381/120-B IPC in which the Petitioner is involved, O.C. Moirang was asked to submit a detailed report through the S.D.P.O. Moirang. Besides, Petitioner also filed a case before the Manipur Human Rights Commission alleging the same allegation as reflected in the report/complaint filed by Km. M. Chaobi, elder sister of the Petitioner. Accordingly, a detailed report was submitted before the Manipur Human Rights Commission on 27.6.07 wherein the Respondents categorically denied that the Petitioner had been arrested and harassed in the manner mentioned in the said complaint. The said report submitted to the Manipur Human Rights Commission by the S.P., Bishnupur dated 27.6.07 reads as follows: To The Dy. Inspector General of Police (R.III) Manipur, Imphal. Subject: MHRC Case No. 19 of 2007. Ref. FIR No. 69 (4) 07 MRG PS under Section 381/120B IPC. Sir, Kindly refer to Endst. Letter No. 10 (3)/R-111/98/423 dated the 26th June, 2007 on the above subject, I am to furnish herewith the required detailed report of the above referred case as below: Brief fact of the case: On 10.4.2007 at 7.30 a.m. one Smt. Konjengbam Ongbi Shakhi Devi (65) w/o (L) K. Babudhon Singh of Moirang Bazar lodged a written report with OC 'MRG PS stating that on 4.4.2007 at about 9 p.m. the complainant came to know that her gold ornaments worth about Rs. 8,80,700 (Rupees eight lakhs eighty thousand seven hundred) which were kept in two separate steel almirah were found missing from each places. On the next day, one boy namely Konjengbam Naoton Singh @ Manihar (20) s/o (L) K. Konjengba Singh of Konjengbam Leikai, Moirang who was employed by the complainant as a helper was also found to have run away with the gold ornaments while the complainant though of a meeting of the family members to discuss about the missing geld ornaments. On the next day, one boy namely Konjengbam Naoton Singh @ Manihar (20) s/o (L) K. Konjengba Singh of Konjengbam Leikai, Moirang who was employed by the complainant as a helper was also found to have run away with the gold ornaments while the complainant though of a meeting of the family members to discuss about the missing geld ornaments. The complainant and the family members searched the boy but in vain as he have not return even to his parental home which is located at Moirang. Finally, the complainant came to know that the boy's namely Konjengbam Naoton Singh @ Manihar (20) s/o (L) K. Konjengba Singh of Konjengbam Leikai, Moirang have run away from the house after stealing the gold ornaments. Hence the case. On receipt of the written report OC/Moirang PS registered a case under FIR No. 69 (4)07 MRG PS under Section 381/120-B IPC for investigation. Investigation: During the course of investigation, the I.O. examined the complainant minutely who corroborated with the O.E. of the case. Inspected the spot and prepared a rough sketch map of the P.O. with index. Attempts have been made to nab the accused and several efforts were also made to recover the stolen gold ornaments. Further, as many as 14 (fourteen) P Ws were examined in the case. During the investigation, the I.O. of the case have been able to establish the identities of the accomplices of the absconded accused Konjengbam Naoton Singh @ Manihar (20) s/o L. K. Konjenba Singh of Konjengbam Leikai, Moirang. They are identified as (1) K. Sarat Singh, (2) K. Sunita, (3) K. Memcha Devi and (4) K. Brojen Singh, as such they were formally arrested and at their instance some of the stolen gold ornaments, and proceeds of the sold out gold ornaments were recovered. They are identified as (1) K. Sarat Singh, (2) K. Sunita, (3) K. Memcha Devi and (4) K. Brojen Singh, as such they were formally arrested and at their instance some of the stolen gold ornaments, and proceeds of the sold out gold ornaments were recovered. Details of the recovered articles are as below: (i) 4 pieces of gold necklace (Marei Maru Pareng), weighing about 2 1/2-San, 4 Chaning, (2) 1-gold finger ring (Tin Majek) weighing about 1-San including the stone, (3) 1-gold finger (Bombai Patty) weighing about 2-Sans and 3-Chaning from one of the witnesses namely R. K. Bobi @ Boba Devi (36 years) D/o R. K. Surjamani of Moirang Lamkhai on 17.4.07 which was sold out by the accused K. Sarat Singh after slight modification of the stolen gold ornaments; (ii) 1 (one)pair of earring-3 bolls (Makhong Yetpi) weighing about 23-Chaning from accused Sunita Devi on 17.4.07 after slightly modifying the said gold ornament by M. Gandhi Singh (Goldsmith). (iii) 1 (one) pair of ear ring-3 bolls (Makhong Yetpi) weighing about 1-San and 1 (one) pair of ear ring-1 boll (Nanappi) weighing about 1/2 San from one witness namely Konjengbam Merina which was modified by one of the witnesses namely Konjengbam Rameshwor Singh of Moirang Bazar (Goldsmith) on 20.4.07. (iv) 1 (one) gold finger ring (Grahamapan) without stone inscribed as "Brojen" weighing about 1-San and 22-Chaning from the accused Brojen and Sunita on 24.4.07 after being given by M. Gandhi Singh (Goldsmith). (v) 1 (one) gold necklace (Thounam Mari Aniphangbi) weighing about 6-Sans and 9-Chanings from one witness Moirangthem Ibocha Singh on 25.4.07 being given by goldsmith M. Gandhi Singh. (vi) 1 (one) Digital Camera (Sony) and 1 (one) set of woofer Speaker system (A-2000) from accused K. Sarat Singh on 27.4.07. This 2 (two) items were purchased by absconding accused Naotomba Singh using the sale proceed of stolen gold ornaments and were handed over to his brother Sarat Singh for use at home. Further investigation revealed the involvement of another accomplice of absconding accused one Shri Moirangthem Gandhi Singh s/o M. Tomba Singh of Ngangkhalawai, who is a goldsmith by profession. Investigation also further revealed that Mr. Further investigation revealed the involvement of another accomplice of absconding accused one Shri Moirangthem Gandhi Singh s/o M. Tomba Singh of Ngangkhalawai, who is a goldsmith by profession. Investigation also further revealed that Mr. M. Gandhi Singh used to received the stolen gold ornaments from the absconding accused Konjengbam Naoton Singh @ Manihar (20) s/o (I) K. Konjengba Singh of Konjengbam Leikai, Moirang and also revealed that Shri M. Gandhi Singh instigate the accused to hand over the stolen ornaments which he in turn sold out to the customers. So, in order to verify the above noted facts, the I.O. have summoned Shri M. Gandhi Singh for examinations on 15.4.2007. But due to lack of concrete evidence M. Gandhi Singh was not arrested and allowed to go. He was never harassed nor detained in police lock-up as alleged. However, after the arrest of the main accused Konjengbam Naoton Singh @ Manihar (20) s/o (L) K. Konjengba Singh of Konjengbam Leikai, Moirang on 14.5.2007 and after thorough interrogation of the accused, the involvement of Shri M. Gandhi Singh in the case have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Ironically, on getting the information about the revelation made by the main accused, M. Gandhi became too much apprehensive of the consequences that he made himself admitted in the hospital and till this date he remain admitted in the hospital to avoid arrest. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the police have never harass M. Gandhi Singh while he was summoned at police Station on 15.4.2007, and the allegation against the police is not only a baseless one but also a plea/pretext to avoid prosecution under the law. Submitted. Yours faithfully, Sd/ S.P. Bishnupur Dist Manipur. 18. Mr. Rakesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in order to substantiate the case of the Petitioner, had placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court (D/B), incidentally this Court is one of the parties) in the case of Chanambam Menjor Singh v. Commandant/C.O. 61, C.R.P.F. and Ors. 2006 (3) GLT 429 and the decision of the Apex Court in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 178 . In Chanambam Menjor Singh's case (supra) there was no dispute as to the detention or/arrest of the victim, namely Shri Ch. Lokendro Singh by the CRPF personnel. 2006 (3) GLT 429 and the decision of the Apex Court in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 178 . In Chanambam Menjor Singh's case (supra) there was no dispute as to the detention or/arrest of the victim, namely Shri Ch. Lokendro Singh by the CRPF personnel. Over and above, learned District Judge, Manipur East also submitted his report dated 30.12.05 after appreciation of the statement of the P Ws and also C Ws that the victim was arrested and detained by the CRPF personnel and also that the victim (Shri Ch. Lokendro Singh) was tortured by the personnel of CRPF. In that given case, this Court of Chanambam Menjor Singh's case (supra) held as follows: 26. This Court in a number of cases had entertained claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental rights to life and awarded compensation for the established infringement of indefeasible rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and that it is the remedy available in public law. Some of the cases are-(1) Shri Rajen Gogoi v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 (2) GLT 3 84 (DB), (2) Shri Kangujam Ongbi Devi v. State of Manipur and Ors. 1999 (2) GLT 202, (3) Terarongsen and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (1) GLT 218, (4) Tarulata Devi v. State of Assam and Ors. 2001 (2) GLT 419 and (5) Kaisiliangmani (Th) v. Union of India and Ors. 2005(1) GLT 185. Conclusion: 27. Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which are the heart and soul of the Constitution of India, cannot be treated only as showpieces, which are to be polished time and again and kept in the rack. Articles 21and 22 of the Constitution of India are to be used, protected and enforced by all in consonance with the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also the Declaration and Covenants of Civil and Political Rights and Covenants of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to which India is also a party. The word "life" is also recognized as a basic human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which has the same meaning and interpretation as had been placed in the Article 21of the Constitution of India according to the various decisions of the Apex Court. The word "life" is also recognized as a basic human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which has the same meaning and interpretation as had been placed in the Article 21of the Constitution of India according to the various decisions of the Apex Court. The meaning of the word "life" cannot be narrowed down and protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution shall also be available to all the persons. 28. In the present case, there is clear and established infringement of indefeasible right of the victim, Shri Ch. Lokendra Meitei guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Respondent Nos. 1, i.e. personnel of 61 Bn. CRPF and the Respondent No. 5, the Union of India. This Court in exercise of the public law jurisdiction, to meet the ends of justice in the present case, the wrong doer i.e. Respondent No. 1, Commandant, 61 Bn. CRPF and Respondent No. 5, the Union of India are directed to pay compensation to the victim, Shri Ch. Lokendra Meitei. 29. For fixing the amount of compensation, this Court has carefully considered the decision of the Apex Court in Rudul v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086 and Bhim Singh MLA v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 577. In the case of Bhim Singh (supra) a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been awarded as monetary compensation to Mr. Bhim Singh for illegal detention in the police lock up for 5 (five) days. In the present case the practicing advocate, i.e. victim had not only been detained unlawfully from 24.3.95 to 29.3.95 but also tortured and assaulted while he was in custody of the 61 Bn. CRPF at their Headquarter. 30. Keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that quantum of compensation for illegal detention, torture, mental agony and forfeiture of his Bajaj Scooter to be paid by the wrong doer i.e. Respondent No. I and 5 would be, for doing justice Rs. 80,000/-. 32. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the directions indicated above. 33. Further, Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 have to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as fee for counsel of the Petitioner in the present writ petition within two months from today. 19. 80,000/-. 32. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the directions indicated above. 33. Further, Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 have to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as fee for counsel of the Petitioner in the present writ petition within two months from today. 19. The Apex Court in Sube Singh (supra) held: 46 In cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, the Courts may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to itself the following questions: (a) whether the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the Court, (c) whether the custodial torture alleged has resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report or visible marks or scars or disability. Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a person except hi s own statement, and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated fully or in part, the Courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 32 or 226, but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action. 20. The Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1269 (V 54 C 264) (AIR para 6, p. 1270) held that: ...under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised by the petition. Where an enquiry in to complicated questions of fact arises in a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution before the right of an aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined, the High Court may in appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court. But the question is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case the question in dispute was about the regularity of the enquiry and the High Court was apparently of the view that the question whether the State acted arbitrarily did not raised any question of investigation into complicated issues of fact. No interference with the exercise of the discretion of the High Court is, therefore, called for. 21. The Apex Court in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandalal Khodidas Barot and Ors. (1974) 2 SCC 706 (SCC para 10,p.715) held that: ...A writ petition under Article 226, it needs to be emphasised, is essentially different from a suit and it would be incorrect to assimilate and incorporate the procedure of a suit into the proceedings of a petition under Article 226. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the Petitioner's right of relief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is no doubt discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition arises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition (see Gunwant Kaur v. Bfeatinda Municipality AIR 1970 SC 802 : (1969) 3 SCC 769 . If however, on consideration of the nature of the controversy, the High Court decides, as in the present case, that it should go into a disputed question of fact and the discretion exercised by the High Court appears to be sound and in conformity with judicial principles, this Court would not interfere in appeal with the order made by the High Court in this respect. 22. 22. The Apex Court in ABL International Ltd. and Anr.'s case (supra) (SCC para 16, P. 567) held that "A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee Bhatinda (1969)3 SCC 769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16). 14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the Petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons. 15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the Appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the Appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector. 16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interest of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called or an affidavit -in-reply from the Respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the Appellants to a separate suit. 23. The apex Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDC) and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 298 held that it is settled position that where disputed question of fact are involved, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the proper remedy. In that case there was serious disputed question of fact as to the deceased died as a result of negligence of the GRID Corporation under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. Para 6 of SCC in Sukamani's Case reads follows: 6. In that case there was serious disputed question of fact as to the deceased died as a result of negligence of the GRID Corporation under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. Para 6 of SCC in Sukamani's Case reads follows: 6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the Appellants that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the Appellants." The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were action in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant I had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the Appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the Appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the Petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a properly remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ Petitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995. 24. Again in D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. The High Court should have directed the writ Petitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995. 24. Again in D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 160 held that where basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved, the writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief and remedy will be regular suit. Para 19 and 20 of the D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. (supra) is quoted below: 19. Thus in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Court has been called upon to decide disputed questions of fact and law relating to the precise nature and extent of right, title and interest of the parties in the plots in question. Even the basic documentary evidence, such as the orders granting the sanctions, the conditions of the sanctions, and the agreements in which they are said to have been incorporated, were not produced before the pronouncement of judgment in the High Court. Even the questions of law relating to the validity and effect of Regulation 5 (3) could not be properly decided in the absence of proof or admission of such primary facts. The High Court also felt this difficulty in reaching the finding that a fiduciary relationship in the nature of a trust came into existence in regard to the user of these open sites. It conceded that this matter was being considered "in the abstract without reference to the facts of any case", and had to leave undetermined the exact nature of the trust that had come into being and the person or persons in whom the beneficial interest in these open sites was supposed to vest under such trust. Nevertheless, it concluded that the Petitioners had by their own conduct and operation of law ceased to be full and compete owners of the plots and held them only as trustees. This 'conduct' of the Petitioners according to the High Court consisted of the acts of making applications for sanction of the layout plans to the authority and the execution of the requisite agreements. But the evidence of those agreements and the terms and conditions oft he sanctions were conspicuous by their absence from the record. This 'conduct' of the Petitioners according to the High Court consisted of the acts of making applications for sanction of the layout plans to the authority and the execution of the requisite agreements. But the evidence of those agreements and the terms and conditions oft he sanctions were conspicuous by their absence from the record. Again in the absence of relevant material on the record, the High Court found it difficult to record a categorical finding as to whether the provisions of Regulation 5 (3) (iv) were only optional and could be waived, or had in fact been waived by the authority while granting sanction of the layout plans in case of any of these six colonies in question. 20. In our opinion, in a case where the basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The right course for the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. In the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. On this short ground while setting aside the findings of the High Court, we would dismiss both the writ petition and the appeal with costs. The Appellants may, if so advised, seek their remedy by a regular suit. 25. On careful perusal of the respective pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that the basic fact for granting relief in the present writ petition are seriously disputed and the respective pleadings of the parties are required to be proved by not only producing the documentary but also by producing oral evidence i.e. by examining the witnesses, for this writ proceeding is not the appropriate proceeding. 26. For foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this Court may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution and writ Petitioner should be relegated to traditional remedy by way of approaching civil and criminal action. Accordingly, writ Petitioner is to seek traditional remedy by way of approaching the appropriate Civil Court or/and Criminal Court. 27. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction.