JUDGMENT F.M. Reis 1. We have heard the petitioner-in-person and Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 8. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that complaints have been lodged with regard to Matka gambling by children/students and other allegations with that regard. It is further contended that no action is taken against such illegal activities. It is further their contention that complaints have been lodged with the Crime Branch, who caught and arrested 20 persons though according to the petitioners, as there were illegal gratifications to the police officers, no raid was conducted. It is further their contention that police officers, four Superintendents, head constables were issued suspension letters and that the suspension orders were kept in abeyance as no action was being taken despite the complaints lodged with the police against such activities, alleging that there are some nexus with the law enforceable agency. As such, the above petition is filed to direct that investigation be carried out in respect of such illegal activities. 3. An affidavit-reply is filed by the respondent no.8, inter alia, disputing all the said contentions and specifically claiming that all the allegations against the police and that they are getting illegal gratification is seriously disputed. It is also contended that necessary steps have been taken if any such complaint are lodged. 4. Upon hearing the petitioner in person and Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent no.8, we find that there are issues raised which requires consideration by this Court. Hence, Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forth. The learned Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 8. 5. After hearing the matter for some time, the learned Public Prosecutor was asked whether the respondents would register an F.I.R. based on the allegations in the above petition. The learned Public Prosecutor accordingly, upon instructions, stated that the respondents shall register an F.I.R. based on the allegations in the above writ petition and that the investigation shall be carried out by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that instead of treating the whole Petition as F.I.R., it would be appropriate to restrict the relevant paragraphs in the petition to be considered as F.I.R. 6. Upon hearing the petitioner in person and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that instead of treating the whole Petition as F.I.R., it would be appropriate to restrict the relevant paragraphs in the petition to be considered as F.I.R. 6. Upon hearing the petitioner in person and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 8, by consent, paragraph nos. 28 up to 80 shall be treated as an F.I.R. 7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to register an F.I.R. as per the contents of paragraph nos.28 to 80 of the above petition and proceed to investigate the complaint in accordance with law. The progress report should be filed every six months until further orders. 8. Rule stands disposed of accordingly.