JUDGMENT P.V. HARDAS, J. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. Initially this Petition was filed on behalf of Mohini Naraindas Kamwani as the sole Petitioner. Subsequently, with the leave of the Court this Petition was amended and Dilip Naraindas Kamwani was permitted to be joined as Petitioner No. 2. Initially, this Petition was argued by the Advocate representing the Petitioner but subsequently on the Advocate of the Petitioner being discharged, the entire Petition was being conducted and argued by the Petitioner No. 2 in-person. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Petition may briefly be stated thus. The First Petitioner resides with the Second Petitioner, who is her son alongwith a mentally challenged daughter by name Kanta Kamwani. The Second daughter of the First Petitioner named Sumita Karani resides in Vashi alongwith her husband. Sumita Karani has three sons one of whom resides at Andheri while the other two resides in Dubai and in U.S.A. respectively. According to the Petitioners, somewhere in August 2010, Manoj Karani, son of Sumita Karani and grandson of the First Petitioner approached the Petitioner with an intention of forcibly obtaining the signature of the First Petitioner on some documents and also for obtaining the Bank details of the First Petitioner. According to the First Petitioner, she had severed her relations with her daughter Sumita Karani and the grand children of the First Petitioner some time in 2007. Since the First Petitioner had protested the overtures of her grand son Manoj Karani in obtaining the signature and Bank details of the First Petitioner, Manoj Karani left the premises but had threatened the First Petitioner and the Second Petitioner. The Petitioner No. 1 therefore had approached the Respondent on 24.12.2010 for lodging of a report and registration of criminal case against her grandson. It appears that on the basis of the complaint of the First Petitioner, a non-cognizable offence was registered and no further action was taken. Despite the registration of the non-cognizable offence, the grandson of the First Petitioner i.e. Manoj Karani continued to visit the house of the First Petitioner on several occasions and threatened the Petitioner with dire consequences. It appears that on the basis of the complaint of the First Petitioner, a non-cognizable offence was registered and no further action was taken. Despite the registration of the non-cognizable offence, the grandson of the First Petitioner i.e. Manoj Karani continued to visit the house of the First Petitioner on several occasions and threatened the Petitioner with dire consequences. According to the Petitioner, her grandson Manoj Karani had stated that he had links with the underworld and with Hiten Sampat, who had criminal antecedents. 3. Since the Petitioners continued to pursue the report lodged by them, the Petitioners were informed that the dispute which was complained of by the Petitioners was of a civil nature and therefore, no cognizance could be taken. According to the First Petitioner, she had informed the Police that her life was in danger because of the threats of her grandson Manoj Karani. Since no action was being taken on the complaint of the Petitioner, the Petitioner addressed a communication to the Chief Minister on 11.11.2011 pointing out her grievance and the harassment faced by her. The said communication dated 11.11.2011 is annexed to the Petition as Exhibit 'A'. In the aforesaid communication, the Petitioner had highlighted her plight and had also stated that her entire family had decided to commit suicide. According to the Petitioner, after addressing the said communication to the Chief Minister, the Police Officer approached her on 26.12.2011 promising the Petitioner that appropriate action would be taken and asked her to give a written undertaking stating that she would not sit on a protest fast and accordingly, statement of the First Petitioner was recorded on 27.12.2011 wherein the Petitioner had assured that she would not undertake any protest fast and would not commit suicide. The said statement of the Petitioner is annexed to the Petition as Exhibit 'B'. 4. If further appears that the Petitioner had filed certain proceedings before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. The aforesaid proceedings were closed by the Human Rights Commission, according to the Petitioner, on the basis of the incorrect information/statement made by the Police Inspector of the Azad Maidan Police Station. The Petitioner, therefore, addressed a communication on 2nd January 2012 to the Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station informing the Police that the Petitioner intended to sit on "peaceful protest hunger strike" on 16.01.2012 at Azad Maidan. The Petitioner, therefore, addressed a communication on 2nd January 2012 to the Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station informing the Police that the Petitioner intended to sit on "peaceful protest hunger strike" on 16.01.2012 at Azad Maidan. The Petitioner accordingly started her peaceful protest fast from 16.01.2012 at Azad Maidan and continued it for three days. The Petitioner addressed various communications to the authorities informing them that she would continue her hunger fast for an indefinite period until justice was done to her. It also appears that the Petitioner had addressed a communication to the High Court and accordingly, the Registrar (Legal and Research) of the Public Grievance Cell of this Court, addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Police dated 21.01.2012, requesting the Commissioner of Police to look into the complaint/grievance of the First Petitioner and to intimate the Registrar (Legal and Research) in respect of the action which was taken. 5. According to the Petitioner, after receipt of the aforesaid communication by the Police, a high ranking Police Officer of the Azad Maidan Police Station visited the Petitioner and convinced her that action would be taken on her grievance and she should not take any steps which would be contrary to the law of the land. The Petitioner therefore called off her fast and gave the same in writing to the Police Officer. The aforesaid communication of the Petitioner is at Exhibit 'D'. It would be useful to refer hereinbelow the ad-verbatim communication of the First Petitioner :- "Sir I respect law. We have never broken any laws in our lives. Now at age 77 years I do not wish to start breaking any law. The accused have again and again broken laws and Vashi Police is not following/respecting any law. I am a freedom fighter widow senior citizen. My husband went to jail with Mahatma Gandhi for freedom fight ". Thus, according to the Petitioner, by virtue of Exhibit 'E', she had in clear terms intimated to the authorities that the protest was called off and she had also withdrawn her threat to commit suicide. 6. According to the Petitioners, two Police Officers, one of whom was addressed as Shri Kadam and another a lady Police Officer who was addressed as Mrs. 6. According to the Petitioners, two Police Officers, one of whom was addressed as Shri Kadam and another a lady Police Officer who was addressed as Mrs. Chikne, came to her house on 25.01.2012 at about 8.30 a.m. The Petitioners were informed by the Police Officials that they had come to the residence of the Petitioners for registration of a FIR on the complaint of the Petitioners. The Petitioners were, therefore, asked to accompany the Police Officers to the Police Station. Since it was early morning, the Petitioners asked the Police Officers to proceed ahead and they would come to the Police Station in about half an hour. The Petitioners were informed that their presence at the Police Station would be required for about an hour. The Petitioners therefore left the mentally challenged daughter of the First Petitioner in the house and arrived at the Vashi Police Station at about 9.00 a.m. on 25.01.2012. Till about 1.30 p.m. the Petitioner and her son were made to sit inside the Police Station without being informed and without being provided with any food or water. At about 2.30 p.m. the Petitioner and her son were escorted to the Court premises by the Police Officers and were made to sit on a bench outside the Court room of the Magistrate's Court. At about 4.45 p.m. the Petitioner and her son were produced before the Magistrate and it was only at that stage that the Petitioners realized that they were being produced as accused and not as complainants for completing the formalities. The Petitioners were sent to Judicial Custody for a period of three days. The Second Petitioner requested the Respondents that he be produced before the learned Magistrate once again so that the Petitioner could apprise the learned Magistrate all the facts but instead the Second Petitioner was handcuffed by a Police Officer Shri Kadam and was pushed into the Police Van alongwith the First Petitioner. The First Petitioner requested the Police Officer to allow her to take an extra set of clean clothes and other articles and also to ensure that the neighbors were informed to look after her mentally challenged daughter who was alone at home. The request of the First Petitioner was turned down by the Police Officers. The First Petitioner requested the Police Officer to allow her to take an extra set of clean clothes and other articles and also to ensure that the neighbors were informed to look after her mentally challenged daughter who was alone at home. The request of the First Petitioner was turned down by the Police Officers. The Second Petitioner had forwarded a complaint to the Commissioner of Police expressing the grievance and complaining about the illegal arrest of the Petitioners. The said complaint dated 10.02.2012 has been annexed by the Petitioners as Exhibit 'G'. 7. On 27.01.2012 the Petitioners were produced before the Trial Magistrate and were ordered to be released. It appears that the principal reason for arrest of the Petitioners was that the Petitioners had addressed an e-mail to the Police Officer intimating that on 26.01.2012 the Petitioners would commit suicide by self immolation either in front of the Mantralaya or in front of the official residence of the Chief Minister. In the entire report which was submitted to the Magistrate seeking remand of the Petitioners, there was no reference at all to the fact that the Petitioners vide the document at Exhibit 'E' had intimated that the fast was being called off and that they had not broken any law in their lives and did not wish to start breaking any law. 8. Pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate on 27.01.2012 ordering the release of the Petitioners, the Petitioners were taken back to the Kalyan Jail for completing the formalities of their release. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioner No. 2 was handcuffed on way to the Kalyan Prison despite his protest. The Petitioners claim that their arrest is illegal and contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v/s. State of West Bengal [ (1997) 1 SCC 416 ] : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 651. The Petitioners have therefore prayed for prosecution of the Police Authorities who were responsible for detaining the Petitioners and for illegally handcuffing the Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioners further pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to register an offence on the basis of the complaint of the Petitioners against one Shri Manoj Karani. The Petitioners have also prayed for grant of monetary compensation for violation of their fundamental rights. The other reliefs are in respect of the ad-interim reliefs. The Petitioners further pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to register an offence on the basis of the complaint of the Petitioners against one Shri Manoj Karani. The Petitioners have also prayed for grant of monetary compensation for violation of their fundamental rights. The other reliefs are in respect of the ad-interim reliefs. This Petition was amended by the Petitioners when they were appearing in-person and certain other reliefs are also sought by the Petitioners. By virtue of the amendment dated 27.02.2013, the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ directing the suspension and prosecution of Respondent No. 1 - Superintendent of Police Laxman Kale, Superintendent of Police Raosaheb Sardesai and DCP of Vashi Zone. Amendment is also sought by incorporating a prayer for grant of ad-interim relief of compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs to the Petitioners as well as Rs. 10.00 lakhs to the mentally challenged daughter of the First Petitioner by name Kanta Kamwani. The Petition was again subsequently amended by the Petitioners and a relief of a issuance of a writ of mandamus was sought for directing the Police Officers to perform their statutory duties of taking legal action against Sanjeev Karani and Rekha Sanjeev Karani for being in the contact with the underworld person named Hiten Sampat. A writ of mandamus was also sought for directing the Respondents to take "urgent and immediate stern legal action" against all the family members of Karani for threatening the Petitioners. A relief of monetary compensation was again sought. The Petition was subsequently amended and a relief of issuance of a writ was sought for directing the Police Officials for making 114 and 105 calls to suspected Bijlani and for suspension of the Police Officers named in the prayer clause. 9. In response to the notice issued by this court, the respondents have filed affidavits-in-reply. In the affidavit filed by Raosaheb Sardesai, Senior Police Inspector, it is stated that on the basis of the complaint of the first petitioner, N.C. Complaint bearing No. 1571 of 2010 was registered on 24/12/2010 under Sections 506 and 507 of I.P.C. It is also stated that a cross complaint was also registered as N.C. Complaint No. 1580 of 2010 under Sections 506 and 507 of I.P.C. All allegations about illegal arrest and detention by the police officers of Vashi Police have been denied. It is further stated that various complaints have been forwarded by the petitioners, but since no case was made out, no offence was registered. It is further stated that the petitioners had approached the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission by order dated 22/12/2011, directed the Vashi Police to examine the complaints and take appropriate action in accordance with law, provided a case was made out in the complaints. It is also stated that the petitioner no. 1 had forwarded an application that she would commit suicide along with her son, petitioner no. 2 and daughter after hunger strike on 27/12/2011 and 16/1/2012. The affidavit states that the petitioner no. 1 had forwarded an application that on 26/1/2012 she would immolate herself in front of the Mantralaya or Varsha Bungalow of the Chief Minister. It is stated that in these set of facts, an action of detaining the petitioners under Section 151 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code was taken and the petitioner no. 1 was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours and so also apprised of her right to engage an Advocate of her choice. It is further stated that the petitioners were detained on 25/1/2012 at 11.40 a.m. and was then produced before the Magistrate. It is also stated that since the first petitioner had threatened to commit suicide, she was detained along with other petitioner. All allegations about the petitioner no. 2 being handcuffed are denied. 10. Another affidavit, styled as additional affidavit, came to be filed by one Laxman Bhausaheb Kale, Police Inspector, who is presently attached to the Nerul Police Station. In the affidavit, it is stated that since the first petitioner and her son had made an application stating that they would commit suicide, counseling was attempted and the petitioner no. 1 was persuaded not to take such an extreme step, but the petitioner no. 1 declined. It is further stated that, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 151(3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner and her son were detained. It is also stated that the allegations regarding ill-treatment and handcuffing are false. 11. A reference, at this juncture, to the orders passed by this court needs to be made in order to effectively deal with the rival submissions of the parties. It is also stated that the allegations regarding ill-treatment and handcuffing are false. 11. A reference, at this juncture, to the orders passed by this court needs to be made in order to effectively deal with the rival submissions of the parties. Upon filing of the first affidavit of one Raosaheb Sardesai, who at the time of filing of the affidavit was attached to the Vashi Police Station, the Division Bench of this court by its order dated 20/11/2012, at paras 2 and 3, has observed thus: "2. We have perused the affidavit of Raosaheb Baburao Sardesai, Senior Police Inspector, presently attached to Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The affidavit does not throw light on compliance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu. The so called arrest Panchanama or arrest Memorandum is shown to us, which does not bear signature of the arrestee. Though it is contended that information regarding arrest was given to the petitioner's daughter by name Kanta, no record is shown to us to prove in what manner such information was given. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that said Kanta is mentally challenged. The affidavit filed is totally unsatisfactory. 3. Prima facie, the affidavit shows that the directions of the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu have not been complied with. We direct the concerned officer to remain present in this Court on 23rd November, 2012 at 3 p.m. along with entire record." 12. During the subsequent hearing of the petition, the Division Bench of this court by its order dated 23/11/2012 recorded certain findings, which we find it appropriate to reproduce below: "1 We have perused the record produced by the learned A.P.P. The learned A.P.P. states that it is true that on the arrest panchnama signatures of the petitioner and her son were not obtained but there is arrest form drawn at the time of arrest. She states that the petitioner and her son declined to sign on the arrest form. 2 We may note here that in the station diary entry no. 26 which is made at the time of arrest of the petitioner and her son, there is not even a reference to the arrest form. There is no entry in the station diary that arrest form was drawn and the petitioner and her son declined to sign the same. 26 which is made at the time of arrest of the petitioner and her son, there is not even a reference to the arrest form. There is no entry in the station diary that arrest form was drawn and the petitioner and her son declined to sign the same. Moreover, in the affidavit of Shri Raosaheb Baburao Sardesai dated 3rd August 2012, there is no reference whatsoever to the arrest form being drawn. 3 The learned A.P.P seeks time to file additional affidavit. The prayer will have to be rejected for the simple reason that in the petition not only the violation of directions issued by the Apex Court in case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal [ 1997 (1) SCC 416 ] has been alleged, but the directions in the Judgment have been reproduced in the petition. Moreover, the station diary entry does not contain such reference to such arrest form. We have perused the original arrest form of the petitioner and her son. Prima facie, it appears to us that endorsement that arrestees declined to sign the same has been subsequently made as the handwriting appears to be different than the handwriting in which various details have been filled in. In any case, additional affidavit cannot be permitted to be filed to fill up any lacuna. 4 As far as giving of information of arrest to the close relative of the petitioner is concerned, the learned A.P.P stated that the petitioner's daughter Kanta was informed about her arrest. On instructions she stated that a woman constable was deputed for the said work. We may note here that there is no record to show that a constable was deputed and any report was submitted by the constable on record. The learned A.P.P on instructions states that there is no such entry in the station diary or there is no such report. We have noted that the mode by which the communication was allegedly made to the said daughter of the petitioner is not mentioned in the station diary. On the last date, in our order dated 20th November 2012, we have specifically noted that the said Kanta is mentally challenged. The learned A.P.P on instructions states that she is not mentally challenged but disabled. On the last date, in our order dated 20th November 2012, we have specifically noted that the said Kanta is mentally challenged. The learned A.P.P on instructions states that she is not mentally challenged but disabled. 5 We have also heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P on other aspects of the case. The learned A.P.P seeks time to take instructions as regards prayer clause (b). 6 Stand over till 10th December 2012, to be shown at 3.00 p.m for Judgment." 13. We have heard the petitioner no. 2, who appeared in person and the learned APP on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner no. 2 has urged before us that there was a gross violation of the human rights and the arrest of the petitioners was in contravention of the directives by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [ (1997) 1 SCC 416 ] : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 65]. The petitioner no. 2 has further urged before us that the petitioners were called to the police station under a false pretext and were never formally arrested, but produced before the Magistrate. It is further stated that no formal arrest panchanama was drawn and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioners declining to sign the arrest form. It is also stated that the sister of petitioner no. 2 i.e. daughter of petitioner no. 1 is mentally challenged person and consequently the police could not have informed her about the arrest of the petitioners. It is also urged before us that the petitioner no. 1 had communicated to the authorities that she had never breached the law earlier and did not intend to breach it and, therefore, there was no impending threat of the petitioners committing suicide. The petitioner no. 2 has further urged before us that the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to be compensated for their illegal arrest and detention which was in gross violation of the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's, [2013 ALLSCR (O.C.C.) 65] case (Supra) and also are entitled for the issuance of a writ directing the police to register an offence on the basis of the complaint of petitioner no. 1. 1. The learned APP has urged before us that the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case have been followed to the latter and the arrest of the petitioners was justified in the light of the impending threat of the petitioners of committing suicide. 14. The principal challenge in this petition is about the illegal arrest and detention of the petitioners. Whether their arrest was justified or not in the facts of the present case is not a question which this court is called upon to examine. We are required to examine if the petitioners have been arrested contrary to the directives issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu' case. The second question which this court is called upon to examine is, whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the police to register an offence against the accused named in the complaint filed by the petitioner no. 1. 15. In passing, we may state that the petitioner no. 1, though, had initially given threats of committing suicide, subsequently informed the authorities that she had not breached the law earlier and did not intend to do so. It is thus clear that at the time when the police officers visited the residence of the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no.1 was neither sitting on hunger fast nor had the petitioner no.1 taken any steps at initiating the fulfillment of the threat of suicide. If the petitioners had been arrested, as is contended by the respondents, the signatures of the petitioners ought to have appeared on the arrest panchanamas. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners declined to sign the arrest panchanama, according to us is an after thought. There is no corresponding station diary entry which would fortify the submission of the respondents that the petitioners had declined to sign the arrest form. We also find that the respondents had not taken any steps whatsoever of informing the petitioners of their rights and had also not informed the relative of the petitioners about arrest of the petitioners. The daughter of the first petitioner, who was alone at home, was a mentally challenged girl, as is borne out from the certificate filed by the petitioners and consequently the respondents could not have effectively communicated to her about the arrest of the petitioners. The daughter of the first petitioner, who was alone at home, was a mentally challenged girl, as is borne out from the certificate filed by the petitioners and consequently the respondents could not have effectively communicated to her about the arrest of the petitioners. In these set of facts, therefore, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the petitioners on the day they were called to the police station had not taken any steps at committing suicide. In fact, the petitioners had withdrawn such a threat. The petitioners were called to the police station under a false pretext that an offence would be registered on the basis of the report of the first petitioner. We find no reason to question the case of the petitioners that they were detained in the police station and, thereafter, suddenly produced in the court of the Magistrate and to their dismay learnt that they had been arrested. There was no impending threat of the petitioners for committing suicide and in passing, therefore, we may say that their arrest and detention itself was not justified. However, the fact remains that the authorities have committed a blatant violation of the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case and the petition on that score deserves to succeed. 16. In respect of relief prayed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to register an offence, the petitioners have relied on the judgment of this court in Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 173]. The Division Bench of this court in Charu Kishor's case came to the conclusion that in the peculiar facts of that case that a serious economic offence of fraud, embezzlement were alleged in relation to public trust property, the court directed the registration of the offence. A reference at this juncture may usefully be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Alcque Padamsee and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. [ (2007) 6 SCC 171 ] : [2007 ALL SCR 1978], Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. [ (2008) 2 SCC 409 ) : [2008 ALL SCR 1890] and Kunga Nima Lepcha and ors. vs. State of Sikkim and ors. [ (2010) 4 SCC 513 ] : [2010(3) ALL MR 439 (S.C.)]. vs. Union of India and ors. [ (2007) 6 SCC 171 ] : [2007 ALL SCR 1978], Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. [ (2008) 2 SCC 409 ) : [2008 ALL SCR 1890] and Kunga Nima Lepcha and ors. vs. State of Sikkim and ors. [ (2010) 4 SCC 513 ] : [2010(3) ALL MR 439 (S.C.)]. The ratio of the said judgments of the Supreme Court clearly indicates that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the police to register an offence as the party, who is aggrieved, has the alternate remedy of filing either a private complaint or an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the petitioners would not be entitled for a relief of issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to register an offence against the accused named by the petitioner no. 1 in her complaint. We, therefore, relegate the petitioners to the remedies available to them in law. 17. A very disquieting incident is brought to our notice by the petitioner by filing of an affidavit. The petitioners have filed an affidavit on 2/5/2013 during the midst of the hearing of the petition. In the affidavit, it is stated by the petitioner no. 2 that on 26/4/2013 at about 10 p.m. two persons had assaulted him by stating that he had lodged a complaint against them. The petitioner no. 2 further states that he had immediately gone to the Vashi Police Station, but the police refused to register his complaint and also arrested him by stick. Accordingly, petitioner no. 2 was taken to the Government Hospital on 26/4/2013 and ultimately it appears that there is a fracture of the left thumb. It further appears that on the next day, the petitioner no. 2 was taken to the Vashi Police Station and ultimately a non-cognizable offence under Sections 504 and 323 of IPC has been registered. The documents submitted by the petitioner no. 2 clearly indicate that there was a fracture of the thumb. It is extremely disturbing to note that during the pendency of this petition, which involved the illegal arrest and detention of the petitioners, the petitioner no. 2 was subjected to this assault. The documents submitted by the petitioner no. 2 clearly indicate that there was a fracture of the thumb. It is extremely disturbing to note that during the pendency of this petition, which involved the illegal arrest and detention of the petitioners, the petitioner no. 2 was subjected to this assault. Though no specific prayer is made in the petition, we are inclined to issue direction to the police officers to examine the necessary documents and if the report of the petitioner discloses the commission of a cognizable offence to take such steps as are available in law. We further direct that this exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. 18. Coming to the question of awarding damages/compensation to the petitioners for their illegal arrest and detention, according to us, compensation/damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) each to the petitioners would sub-serve the interest of justice. 19. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. We direct the respondents to pay each of the petitioners an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to each of the petitioners from that day till the amount is actually paid to the petitioners. We further direct the police officers of the Vashi Police Station to examine the complaint submitted by the petitioner no. 2 and other necessary documents in support of the grievous injury and if the complaint and the document discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, action in accordance with law be initiated. This petition stands dismissed in so far as it relates to the prayer of issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an offence on the basis of the complaint of the first petitioner. In that respect, we relegate the petitioners to avail alternate remedies available to them in law. 20. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms. We quantify the costs of this petition at Rs. 15,000/-. Ordered accordingly.