JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioners herein are husband and wife. They have come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to them for their illegal arrest made by the then Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station, the fifth respondent herein and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were arrested by the fifth respondent on 14.09.2008 and remanded to judicial custody under the instigation of one Thiru.Sivaraj, Member of Legislative Assembly representing Rishivanthiyam Constituency in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, based on his complaint dated 18.12.2007. There were series of cases filed by the petitioners against the said MLA and the MLA also filed the case against the petitioners. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of those cases are as follows: (a) The marriage between the petitioners took place in the year 1989 at Thiruvannamalai as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of their wedlock, they had one son. (b) The second petitioner, who is the husband of the first petitioner, was assisting his father in his business. The market value of the family properties and assets in the business was worth about to Rupees One Crore. There was a dispute between the second petitioner and his father during the year 1997 regarding partition of the family properties. The dispute was taken before the aforesaid MLA for amicable settlement. The second petitioner alleged that during the course of Panchayat, the said MLA enticed his wife (the first petitioner herein) and raped her. He also alleged that his wife and the said MLA lived an adulterous life. (c) The second petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.157/2006 before this Court alleging that his wife (the first petitioner herein) was abducted by the henchmen of the said MLA. In the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition, he has stated that the his wife (the first petitioner herein) confessed her illicit relationship with the said MLA and that she requested him to marry someone else and live happily. However, he declined the suggestion of the first petitioner. The first petitioner also stated that the second son born to her was fathered by the said MLA. However, he declined the suggestion of the first petitioner. The first petitioner also stated that the second son born to her was fathered by the said MLA. The second petitioner pleaded that the first petitioner lodged a police complaint in All Women Police Station at Sandhapettai, Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District seeking intervention of Police to unite herself with the said MLA and to secure maintenance from the MLA. While so, she was abducted by the henchmen of the MLA. Hence, he approached this Court seeking for a direction to produce his wife (the first petitioner herein) before this Court and to set her at liberty. (d) Accordingly, the first petitioner was produced before this Court. This Court, after enquiring the first petitioner, disposed of the Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.157/2006 on 16.02.2006 by recording her statement and the same was reported in 2006 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 594 (R.MOORTHY VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS). (e) Thereafter, based on the statement made by the first petitioner before this Court while she was enquired in H.C.P.No.157/2006, the second petitioner filed a complaint dated 18.03.2006 under Section 497 IPC to the Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur against the said MLA for committing adultery. His complaint was referred to the Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram and the Assistant Director opined that the remedy available to the second petitioner was to prefer a private complaint. Accordingly, he filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistration, Saidapet, Chennai against the MLA and also making the first petitioner as one of the respondents. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.41/2008 by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. (f) Aggrieved by the private complaint filed by the second petitioner, the MLA filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 before this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008 pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. However, the second petitioner filed an affidavit withdrawing the complaint preferred before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, chennai. Based on the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, this Court passed orders on 29.04.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. (g) In the meantime, the second petitioner filed a petition in M.O.P.No.6/2007 before the Family Court, Pondicherry seeking divorce on the ground of adultery, wherein the MLA was impleaded as one of the respondents. (g) In the meantime, the second petitioner filed a petition in M.O.P.No.6/2007 before the Family Court, Pondicherry seeking divorce on the ground of adultery, wherein the MLA was impleaded as one of the respondents. The said case was dismissed for default. (h) The first petitioner lodged a private complaint against the MLA on 01.08.2007 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, the third respondent herein, complaining that the said MLA had sexual intercourse with her many times taking advantage of the starving condition of her family and out of the same, she has one child born through the said MLA during 1998. In those circumstances, the action of the MLA should be construed as rape and that therefore, appropriate action should be taken against the MLA for committing rape. (i) As no action was taken based on her complaint, she approached this Court by filing a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 seeking for a direction to register FIR against the said MLA, based on her complaint dated 01.08.2007. However, it was reported before this Court that based on the complaint of the first petitioner herein, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately, it was found that the allegations made against the MLA were false. In the said circumstances, this Court passed an order dated 21.11.2007 in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 permitting the first petitioner herein to file a private complaint against the MLA before the appropriate forum. (j) Accordingly, the first petitioner filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was also withdrawn by her. (k) The second petitioner also filed a suit in C.S.No.325/2008 before this Court against the MLA claiming damages to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). The said suit also was withdrawn by him, as the matter was settled out of Court. (l) While so, the MLA lodged a complaint on 18.12.2007 before the the then Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, the fifth respondent herein, alleging that the petitioners threatened him through mobile and landline telephone demanding money. However, no FIR was registered as there were series of cases filed by each of them as stated above. (m) Hence, the MLA filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to register FIR, on the basis of his complaint dated 18.12.2007. However, no FIR was registered as there were series of cases filed by each of them as stated above. (m) Hence, the MLA filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to register FIR, on the basis of his complaint dated 18.12.2007. This Court passed orders on 02.09.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 directing the fifth respondent herein to register FIR and to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law, as the facts revealed the commission of cognizable offences committed by the petitioners herein. (n) Based on the directions of this Court, on 12.09.2008, the fifth respondent herein registered FIR in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) read with 34 IPC and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested on 14.09.2008 and remanded to judicial custody. They were detained in jail for 11 days, until they were released on bail. After investigation, the fifth respondent herein filed a charge sheet before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.7857/2009. (o) The petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. This time, the MLA filed an affidavit stating that the petitioners have approached him through mediators and that they have admitted their mistakes and agreed to withdraw all the litigations filed against him. It is also stated that they executed a signed affidavit to that effect. Hence, he was not interested in prosecuting the case in C.C.No.7857/2009. In those circumstances, recording the affidavit filed by the MLA, this Court has quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009, by an order dated 27.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. (p) In these circumstances, the petitioners gave a complaint dated 23.12.2009 to the respondents 1 to 3 herein alleging that the fifth respondent herein foisted a false case against them in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, based on the complaint given by the MLA. It is further stated therein that said case was quashed by this Court on 27.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. Since they were arrested illegally by the fifth respondent in contravention to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in JOGINDER KUMAR VS. It is further stated therein that said case was quashed by this Court on 27.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. Since they were arrested illegally by the fifth respondent in contravention to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1349 , they sought direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 and 5 and also sought compensation for their illegal arrest. As no action was taken on their complaint, they have come up with the present writ petition. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a common counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a case was registered in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) read with 34 IPC on the file of the E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 02.09.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 and that the fifth respondent investigated the case in accordance with law and arrested the petitioners and produced them before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 14.09.2008 and the said Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody. Hence, there was no illegality in the petitioners' arrest. 5. The fifth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit on the same lines. 6. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the fifth respondent arrested the petitioners on 14.09.2008 illegally and detained them for 11 days entitling them to seek compensation for their illegal arrest. 8. The aforesaid narration of facts make it clear that there were series of cases filed by the petitioners against the MLA. As stated above, the second petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.157/2006 before this Court seeking for production of the first petitioner and to set her at liberty from the clutches of the MLA. Accordingly, she was produced before this Court and the said HCP was disposed on 16.02.2006 recording the statement made by the first petitioner. Paras 3 and 4 of the judgment of this Court in H.C.P.No.157/2006 are extracted hereunder: "3. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, respondents 3 and 4 produced the detenue., viz., Mrs.Lakshmi @ Jeyanthi, before this Court. We enquired her. Paras 3 and 4 of the judgment of this Court in H.C.P.No.157/2006 are extracted hereunder: "3. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, respondents 3 and 4 produced the detenue., viz., Mrs.Lakshmi @ Jeyanthi, before this Court. We enquired her. On our enquiry, she has stated that, she is aged about 33 years and as on date she is studying in Government Service Home, Cuddalore. She further informed us that she had connection with 5th respondent and lived together with him for sometime. According to her, 5th respondent is the father of her second son, who is aged about 7 = years. She states that she also filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirukkoilur, with a request to unite her with the 5th respondent. She is not in a position to inform the details of the said petition said to have been filed by her before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirukoilur. 4. Learned Government Advocate informs that she approached the learned Magistrate for claiming maintenance from 5th respondent for herself and her second son and that the said petition is still pending." 9. Based on the statement made by the first petitioner before this Court in H.C.P.No.157/2006, the second petitioner filed a complaint dated 18.03.2006 under Section 497 IPC. Since the Police authorities directed him to file a private complaint, he filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistration, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.41/2008. The MLA filed Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008. However, the second petitioner filed an affidavit withdrawing the complaint. Based on the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, this Court passed orders on 29.04.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.30428/2008 quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.41/2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. In this regard, paras 2, 5 and 6 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: "2. When the petition to quash the proceedings filed by the petitioner has been taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel for the respondent produced an affidavit before this Court expressing desire to withdraw the complaint, since the issue between the petitioner and the respondent has been amicably settled. The respondent is also physically present in Court and expressed his desire to withdraw the complaint and produce the affidavit attested by his counsel. 5. The respondent is also physically present in Court and expressed his desire to withdraw the complaint and produce the affidavit attested by his counsel. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complaint filed, though sworn statement was taken, no further proceeding was taken and further has expressed his desire to withdraw the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. Since the entire records were called for at the time of admission of petition, it has been transmitted to this Court. 6. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that it will be futile exercise to send back the complaint and other materials to the learned Magistrate for performing formal rituals of recording the statement of the respondent. When the respondent is physically present by filing an affidavit represented through his counsel and expressed his desire to withdraw the complaint, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai 8, to continue. Therefore, the proceedings are quashed and accordingly, the criminal original petition is ordered. " 10. From the above, it is seen that settlement was arrived at between the petitioners and the MLA. However, the terms of the settlement is not known. 11. In this regard, para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is extracted hereunder: "3. I submit that my husband the 2nd petitioner herein lodged private complaint before the Learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai against the said MLA for the offence under Section 497 IPC and the same was numbered in C.C.No.41/2008 and subsequently, the said MLA filed quash petition before this Hon'ble Court for Quash and the same was allowed by this Hon'ble Court." 12. The second petitioner also filed a petition in M.O.P.No.6/2007 before the Family Court, Pondicherry seeking dissolution of his marriage with the first petitioner on the ground of adultery, wherein the MLA was impleaded as one of the respondents. But the same was dismissed for default. In this regard, para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is extracted hereunder: "5. But the same was dismissed for default. In this regard, para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is extracted hereunder: "5. I submit that my husband filed Divorce Petition against me on that ground adultery before the Family Court, Pondicherry in M.O.P.No.6/2007 in that petition my husband impleaded the said MLA as one of the respondent, but the same was dismissed in default." 13. It is further seen that the second petitioner filed a suit in C.S.No.325/2008 before this Court against the MLA claiming damages to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). However, it is stated that the matter was settled out of Court and the second petitioner withdrew the suit. In this regard, para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is extracted hereunder: "4. I submit that my husband filed damage suit in C.S.No.325/2008 before this Hon'ble Court against the said MLA and subsequently the said matter was settled in out of Court and hence, my husband withdrew the said Civil Suit." Here also, the terms of the settlement is not known. 14. The first petitioner lodged a private complaint against the MLA on 01.08.2007 before the third respondent complaining that the said MLA had sexual intercourse with her many times taking advantage of the starving condition of her family and that the second son was born through the said MLA and that in those circumstances, the action of the MLA should be construed as rape and that therefore, appropriate action should be taken against the MLA for committing rape. No action was taken and hence, she filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 seeking for a direction to register FIR against the said MLA, based on her complaint dated 01.08.2007. It was reported before this Court that on enquiry, it was found that the allegations made by her against the MLA were false. Accordingly, this Court passed an order dated 21.11.2007 in Crl.O.P.No.33277/2007 permitting her to file a private complaint against the MLA before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, she filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was also withdrawn by her. In this regard, para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is extracted hereunder: "6. Accordingly, she filed a private complaint before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was also withdrawn by her. In this regard, para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is extracted hereunder: "6. I submit that I lodged complaint before the Commissioner of Police against the said MLA for rape in the year 2007, but no actions were taken by the respondents hence I approached this Hon'ble Court for direction, directing the police to register FIR against the said MLA, when the above petition pending the respondent police referred the matter and hence this Hon'ble Court was pleased passed orders to file private complaint. Accordingly, I filed private complaint against the said MLA before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and the same was withdrawn by me." Here also, the terms of the settlement reached between the first petitioner and the MLA for withdrawing the complaint was not known. 15. As stated in the order dated 16.02.2006 passed in H.C.P.No.157/2006, the first petitioner filed maintenance case against the MLA and the same was also withdrawn. 16. While so, the MLA lodged a complaint dated 18.12.2007 against the petitioners. The crux of the allegation was that the petitioners threatened him through mobile and landline phones and demanded money. It was also alleged that abusive words were used. The MLA has further stated that in view of the threat, he was put to mental agony and hence, he requested action against the petitioners. However, no action was taken. Hence, he filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 seeking direction to the fifth respondent to register FIR and to investigate the case in accordance with law. This Court, on 02.09.2008 disposed the Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 observing that the complaint of the MLA reveals the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners and therefore, a direction was issued to register FIR and to investigate the same in accordance with law. Para 4 of the order dated 02.09.2008 passed in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 is extracted hereunder: "4. I have carefully considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. When the allegations contained in the complaint dated 18.12.2007 do reveal the commission of cognizable offences the first respondent has no other option except to register the case and proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. I have carefully considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. When the allegations contained in the complaint dated 18.12.2007 do reveal the commission of cognizable offences the first respondent has no other option except to register the case and proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. When the first respondent has failed to register the case the petitioner had approached the second respondent and even thereafter no worthwhile action has been taken hence the petitioner has approached this Court. In such circumstances the first respondent is hereby directed to register the case for the cognizable offences revealed from the allegations contained in the complaint dated 18.12.2007 and investigate the case in accordance with law and file the final report within six months from today." 17. As stated above, based on the directions of this Court, the fifth respondent herein registered FIR on 12.09.2008 in Crime No.1429/2008 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) read with 34 IPC on the file of E-1 Mylapore Police Station against the petitioners. As this Court gave a finding that the complaint of the MLA reveals that the petitioners have committed cognizable offences, the fifth respondent, after registering FIR, investigated the matter and arrested the petitioners on 14.09.2008 during the course of investigation and produced them before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and were remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, the fifth respondent filed a final report under Section 173(2) (1) Cr.P.C. and the relevant passage from the said final report is extracted hereunder: "TAMIL" 18. The final report of the fifth respondent was taken on file in C.C.No.7857/2009 by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. In that petition, the MLA filed an affidavit stating that the matter stands settled and that he does not want to prosecute the case. In this regard, the relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the MLA is extracted hereunder: "2. I state that during March/April, 2009, the Petitioners approached the Mediators and through them they approached me and admitted their mistake and further agreed to withdraw all litigations filed against me. They have also executed a signed Affidavit, for the same. It was also agreed that the above case in Crime No.1429 of 2008 on the file of the 1st Respondent will be withdrawn by me. 3. They have also executed a signed Affidavit, for the same. It was also agreed that the above case in Crime No.1429 of 2008 on the file of the 1st Respondent will be withdrawn by me. 3. I state that in the meanwhile, the 1st Respondent filed the Final Report and the same was taken on file by the Learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.7857 of 2009 which is pending before the said Court. 4. I state that in the facts and circumstances mentioned above I am not interested to prosecute the case in C.C.No.7857 of 2009 as already I have agreed to withdraw the same." Based on the affidavit filed by the MLA, this Court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009. 19. According to the petitioners, since the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009 was quashed by this Court on 27.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009, they are entitled to compensation for their illegal arrest. In their representation dated 23.12.2009 seeking compensation for their illegal custody, they have stated as follows: "TAMIL" 20. In my view, the petitioners could not describe their arrest as illegal based on the quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009. The reason is obvious. This Court did not come to the conclusion that the fifth respondent foisted a false case at the instigation of the MLA and arrested them, while quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009. On the other hand, as stated above, the petitioners entered into compromise with the MLA and the MLA filed an affidavit which is also extracted herein above and recording the said statement of MLA only, the proceedings was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21714/2009. In the affidavit filed by the MLA, he has referred the affidavits of the petitioners and those affidavits are also extracted hereunder: AFFIDAVIT OF THE SECOND PETITIONER "TAMIL" AFFIDAVIT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER "TAMIL" 21. It is also relevant that the petitioners initiated various proceedings against the MLA as stated above and those proceedings were withdrawn based on the compromises / settlements between the MLA and the petitioners. None of those settlements are produced by the petitioners before this Court. The terms of the settlements are not known. Thus, while filing this writ petition seeking compensation, the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. 22. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merits. None of those settlements are produced by the petitioners before this Court. The terms of the settlements are not known. Thus, while filing this writ petition seeking compensation, the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. 22. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra) and submitted that the fifth respondent had no justification for effecting arrest on the petitioners and that the Honourable Apex Court, in Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra) has held that only in heinous crimes, arrest should be effected. It was submitted that the Honourable Apex Court also held that not in all cognizable offences the police authorities could effect arrest and that only in heinous crimes, arrest should be effected. The learned counsel further submitted that only if it is necessary, the accused should be arrested as contemplated under Section 157 Cr.P.C and not otherwise. 23. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that Section 157 Cr.P.C. should be read along with Section 41, 154 to 176 of Cr.P.C. He heavily relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Dr.SWAMI SACHIDANAND SAKSHI MAHARAJ VS. STATE OF U.P. reported in 2001 CRI.L.J. 320 and the said judgment considered Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra) and also the other cases which considered Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra). 24. It is useful to extract Sections 41 and 157 (1) Cr.P.C., as follows for the purpose of this case. "41. When police may arrest without warrant. STATE OF U.P. reported in 2001 CRI.L.J. 320 and the said judgment considered Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra) and also the other cases which considered Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra). 24. It is useful to extract Sections 41 and 157 (1) Cr.P.C., as follows for the purpose of this case. "41. When police may arrest without warrant. (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a war rant, arrest any person- (a) Who has been concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned; or (b) Who has in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie on such person, any implement of house-breaking; or (c) Who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State Government; or (d) In whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing; or (e) Who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or (f) Who is reasonable suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or (g) Who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which lie is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or (h) Who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under subsection (5) of section 365; or (i) For whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears there from that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition. (2) Any officer in charge of a police station may, in like manner, arrest or cause to be arrested any, person, belonging to one or more of the categories of person specified in section 109 or section 110. 157. Procedure for investigations. (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may by general order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery of the offender: Provided that- (a) When information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the office in-charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; (b) If it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is sufficient ground for entering off an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. 25. In my view, the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent squarely applies to this case and the reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra) has no substance. In fact, in Joginder Kumar's case (cited supra) was considered by the Full Bench as well as the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the same is found in paras 24 and 25 of the judgment in Dr.SWAMI SACHIDANAND SAKSHI MAHARAJ' case (cited supra) and those paras including para 27 are extracted hereunder: "24. This decision came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Satpal v. State of U.P., (2000) 40 ACC 75 and the Full Bench was of the view that the above observations were made in peculiar set and circumstances of that particular case and they could not be universally applied. 25. This decision came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Satpal v. State of U.P., (2000) 40 ACC 75 and the Full Bench was of the view that the above observations were made in peculiar set and circumstances of that particular case and they could not be universally applied. 25. The said decision again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.S.Krishnan and another (Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.2148 of 2000) decided on May 25th 2000. Hon'ble R.K.Dash, J. delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench closely examined the matter and observed as under: "A person accused of commission of a cognizable offence cannot ask the Court to restrain the police from arresting him. If materials are forthcoming after some investigation showing his involvement and in the opinion of the police officer there is need to effect arrest, no fault can be found with him in so doing. The Court sitting within four walls cannot visuallize the situation which necessitated the police officer to arrest the accused. In the course of hearing, a submission was made at the Bar that in view of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar (supra) that except in heinous offences, arrest must be avoided, there is implied prohibition on the police to exercise the power of arrest in respect of other non-bailable offences. We are unable to accept such contention. The aforesaid decision was rendered in a different fact situation. The petitioner, an Advocate was called by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad to his office in connection with inquiry in some cases. On his appearance, he was taken to Mussoorie and detained in the police station. His brother along with other relatives went to the said police station and found the police to have taken him to some undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances, the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed before the Apex Court. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Court, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad appeared and denied accusation of illegal detention and stated that the help of the petitioner was sought to detect some crimes. The question, therefore was whether the petitioner was really detained by the police and if so what was the reason for detention. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Court, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad appeared and denied accusation of illegal detention and stated that the help of the petitioner was sought to detect some crimes. The question, therefore was whether the petitioner was really detained by the police and if so what was the reason for detention. While dealing with the said question, their Lordships made a passing observation that except in heinous offences, arrest must be avoided. It was further observed: "A reading of the said decision what appears to us that no argument was advanced nor attention of the Court was drawn with regard to the necessity of arrest of a person involved in the offence which has impact on the society. In our opinion besides the nature and gravity of the crime and seriousness of the offence, its social impact is also a circumstance to take decision about the need of arrest." 27. We have also closely gone through the aforesaid decision of Joginder Kumar ( AIR 1994 SC 1349 ) and find that the facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of present case. On the direction of the Supreme Court, District Judge, Ghaziabad made a detailed inquiry and submitted his report. The petitioner in that case was a practicing Advocate who was called by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad in his office on 7-1-94 and he was unnecessarily detained for about five days. In that case the Court was not called upon to answer as to whether despite the fact that an F.I.R disclosing commission of a cognizable offence has been registered and the police has entered into investigation, the arrest of the person against whom accusations have been made should not be arrested till completion of investigation......" 26. Hence, I am of the view that the fifth respondent did not commit any illegality in effecting arrest, more particularly, when this Court directed the fifth respondent to register FIR stating that cognizable offences were committed by the petitioners. In this regard, the relevant para in the order dated 02.09.2008 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 was also extracted herein above. 27. But the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that the aforesaid order of this Court is illegal and contrary to various decisions of the Honourable Apex Court. I am not able to subscribe to their views. 27. But the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that the aforesaid order of this Court is illegal and contrary to various decisions of the Honourable Apex Court. I am not able to subscribe to their views. In this regard, para 5 of the additional written argument submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is extracted hereunder: "5. I submit that the Investigation Officer (5th respondent) has "not applied his own independent mind and he has acted under this Hon'ble Court illegal order / direction in Crl.O.P.No.21093 of 2008, dated: 02.09.2008 and under oral instructions of the 4th respondent and also under instigation of the said MLA S.SIVARAJ and with malafide intentions and arbitrarily" to made out arrest of the petitioners/accused persons. Hence the 5th respondent has made out arrest is illegal and the petitioners are entitled to claim payment of compensation for Rs.20 Lakhs from the respondents." 28. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the order dated 02.09.2008 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 attained finality and the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not apply to this case. Furthermore, the fifth respondent investigated the matter and gave a final report stating that cognizable offences have been made out by the petitioners. The findings of the fifth respondent pursuant to the investigation resulting in filing of the charge sheet was not found fault with by this Court while quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.7857/2009 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate and on the other hand, it was quashed pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the MLA and the same was also extracted herein above. 29. Furthermore, while the petitioners made allegations that their arrest was pursuant to the instigation of the MLA, the MLA was not made as a party respondent. In this regard, it is relevant to extract para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition as follows: "7. 29. Furthermore, while the petitioners made allegations that their arrest was pursuant to the instigation of the MLA, the MLA was not made as a party respondent. In this regard, it is relevant to extract para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition as follows: "7. I submit that the said MLA lodged complaint on 18.12.2007 before the Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station (the 5th respondent herein) against me for the alleged that I have threatened him through cell phone and landline telephone and subsequently he approached this Hon'ble Court and obtained order in Crl.O.P.No.21093/2008 to register FIR on the basis of the said complaint, accordingly the 5th respondent registered FIR without enquired me, but the 5th respondent immediately arrested me along with my husband and put into Jail, even without any material evidence for cognizable offence and detained in Jail for more than 11 days. The said 5th respondent arrested us under instigation of the said MLA eventhough the arrest is not warranted ....." 30. In view of the aforesaid facts making it clear that so many proceedings were initiated by the petitioners and they entered into settlement and the terms of the settlement are not known and more particularly, when the petitioners pleaded that their arrest was made at the instigation of the MLA, the MLA was not made as a party. Besides, in both the oral and written arguments, it was reiterated that the arrest was made at the instigation of the MLA, however, he was not made as a party. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper parties. 31. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.