JUDGMENT : By means of filing this writ application under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner no.1, who is brother of alleged victim of custodial crime and the petitioner no. 2, who is mother of the victim, have inter alia, prayed for [a] issuance of writ of mandamus and/or, writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent-authorities to hand-over investigation papers to an independent Investigating Agency like Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]; [b] to take action against erring Police Constable viz., Pir Mohammed Fateh Mohammed, Mahendrasinh Hamirsihn, Vijansinh Sankarsihn Kishan Naslabhai, PI-AC Patel and PSO JR Waghela; [c] to direct the respondent-State to produce police papers/report prepared in pursuance to incident dated 2nd July 2005 and 3rd July 2005 regarding the death of Ghanshyam, while victim was in custody of Kareli Baug Police Station; [d] to award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioners; [e] to direct the State authorities to register complaint against the erring officers who were on duty at the time of said incident; and [f] to quash and set-aside the inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara bearing Inquiry Case No. 10 of 2005. 2. Before delving into the matter, brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the issues read thus : 3. On 2nd July 2005 at around 3:00 - 3:30 pm, when the younger brother of the petitioner no. 1 was sitting at the end of Meera Society, Harni Road, Vadodara, at that time, sleuths from North Zone Police Station came and intercepted his younger brother. The petitioner no. 1 came to know about the said fact on the very day at about 7:00 pm, and therefore, the petitioner no. 1 went at DCB Police Station to inquire about his younger brother. However, he was informed that since last two days, no arrest was made and hence, he was direct to make a phone call by dialing 100. Consequently, upon the petitioner no. 1 making a call at the said number, he was informed by the otherside that there was no information as to the arrest of any person named Ghanshyam, so the caller may inquire from North Zone Control room. The petitioner no. 1 did inquire at the said place so directed, however, he could not get any information in respect of arrest of his brother named Ghanshyam. The petitioner no. 1 did inquire at the said place so directed, however, he could not get any information in respect of arrest of his brother named Ghanshyam. In his efforts to look around desperately for his brother, the petitioner no. 1 lastly reached at Kareli Baug Police Station at around 9:45 pm, from where also, he could not get any information about his brother's arrest. 4. However, to his utter shock and surprise, on the next day morning at around 7:30 am, police personnels identifying themselves to be coming from Kareli Baug Police Station informed the petitioners that Ghanshyam has passed away and asked them to follow them urgently towards the Police Station. Thus, the petitioners reached at the Police Station where they saw Ghanshyam dead. He was lying on the floor without any clothes. The Executive Magistrate and one lady and other police staff were preparing panchanama. The petitioner no. 1 was informed by A.C Patel, Incharge Police Officer of Kareli Baug Police Station that his brother has committed suicide by hanging himself. The petitioner no. 1 observed injury marks of stick on the various parts of the dead body and found that blood was still oozing out from such injuries inflicted on the person of his brother-Ghanshyam. Suspecting death of his younger brother at the hands of police personnels, the petitioner no. 1 lodged a written complaint before the respondent no. 2 herein on 4th July 2005. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides. 6. Learned advocate Shri Rajesh Shah appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that this is a case of brutal killing of arrestee-Ghanshyam by the police personnels of the concerned Police Station, and hence, a grievance was raised by lodging a written complaint by the petitioner no. 1 herein. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the State authorities have miserably failed to do justice. That, at the time of arrest of deceased-Ghanshyam, police personnels never informed his family members or friends, and thereby flouted guidelines and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions relating to arrest/detention of an arrestee. According to learned advocate for the petitioners, had the fact of arrest of Ghanshyam would have been known to his family members, this brutal killing could have been avoided. 7. According to learned advocate for the petitioners, had the fact of arrest of Ghanshyam would have been known to his family members, this brutal killing could have been avoided. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that pursuant to an Order dated 23rd February 2006 passed by this Court, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara initiated inquiry into the matter and submitted its report on 10th April 2006 and the said report is necessary for the purpose of determining the custodial death of deceased Ghanshyam. That, the co-accused Malay Atul Patel has given statement in support of the petitioner no. 1, and whereas, statements of Rakesh Naranbhai Patel and Mahendra Chiranjivilal Patel also supported say of the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners pointed out that the offence for which deceased Ghanshyambhai was allegedly arrested was not a serious one, as it was under Section 122 [c] of the Bombay Police Act, and which is bailable. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the basic lacunae on the part of police personnels, who effected arrest of deceased and named the officials who were on duty, when the deceased-Ghanshyam was arrested. Lastly, Shri Rajesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners placed reliance upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saheli Womens' Resources Central through Ms. Nalini Bhanuat & Ors. v., Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 513 ; of Smt. Nilabati Behtha @ Lalita Behtha [through Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in JT 1993 [2] SC 503 and in case of D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1997 [2] GLR 1631, to allow this petition. 9. 9. Per contra, learned APP Shri K.L. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, urged that the sleuths of North Squad of Vadodara City Police Station, when were on patrolling duty on 2nd July 2005, noticed one person named Ghanshyam behaving suspiciously and therefore, he was booked under Section 122 [c] of the Bombay Police Act by the Head Constable Pirmohammed Fatemohammad and on the basis of the said complaint, he came to be arrested after filing of the arrest memo, which was forwarded to Karelibaug Police Station, culminating into registration of complaint under Section 122 [c] of the Bombay Police Act as C.R No. II-122/2005, and accordingly, accused-Ghanshyam Balumal Dasani was put in lockup. Learned APP submitted that alongwith the deceased-Ghanshyam, there were three other accused persons in the lock up at Kareli baug Police Station. However, deceased was very frightened on the relevant day, apprehending his arrest in connection with another serious offence. It is due to such fear that he would be imprisoned for whole life, that he committed suicide. 10. Learned APP drew attention of this Court to the procedure that came to be followed under Section 174 CrPC. Learned APP informed the Court that investigation of this incident was conducted by PSI Shri J.R. Vaghela with due assistance of Officer from Forensic Science & Executive Magistrate. He informed the Court that a Sub-Divisional Magisterial inquiry was held into the matter and during the course of proceedings, statements of relatives of the deceased; including the petitioner as well as Police personnels were recorded and the report was submitted to the Court, giving conclusion of death of deceased-Ghanshyam due to Asphanxia. Learned APP read over the report to point out that there were no injury marks on the body of the deceased; except on neck, which was due to hanging. He also read over statements of Maganbhai Tirthdas Khatri; Kishan Tirthdas; petitioner no.1-Ashokbhai; one hawker; Malay Atulbhai and Rakeshbhai, who were in lock-up in Prohibition case; statements of police personnels Pirmohammad Fatehmohammed; Kanaksinh; Mahendrasinh Himatsinh; Vijaysinh Shankersinh and Kishanbhai Nishalbhai. 11. Lastly, learned APP Shri Pandya appearing for the respondent-State contended that the report was prepared by SDM and findings have been given, after discussing all the evidence. 11. Lastly, learned APP Shri Pandya appearing for the respondent-State contended that the report was prepared by SDM and findings have been given, after discussing all the evidence. The learned Inquiry Officer has also observed that FSL report duly supports the version given by Malay and other convicts. That, the doctor who had conducted post mortem has also supported the case of asphanxia. That, the post mortem report also does not show any injury on the person of the deceased; except ligature marks. 12. Concluding his arguments, learned APP urged that the contentions raised by the petitioners do not get requisite support; except bare allegations against the police personnels, and therefore, this writ application being devoid of merits deserves to be rejected. 13. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides and having considered the material available on the record, at the outset, it appears that on 2nd July 2005 at 12:05 am, near Indrapuri Society, Opp. Subhash Park, Head Constable Pirmohammed Fatehmohammed noticed that one person named Ghanshyam Balumal Dasani was behaving in suspicious manner and trying to hide from the police personnels behind a bungalow in a residential society and when asked, no satisfactory explanation was given by him in respect of his behaviour and presence. And therefore, Head Constable Pirmohammed Fatehmohammad [Buckle No. 1913] registered a complaint under Section 122 [c] of the Bombay Police Act against Ghanshyambhai before ASI-Kanaksinh Solanki. Accordingly, he was arrested in connection with the said complaint and after filing the arrest memo, one Gajendra Punambhai Chauhan – friend of said Ghanshyambhai, residing at Raveliya Mahadev, Bharward Vas, New VIP Road, Vadodara was informed about the arrest. The said Gajendra Punambhai Chauhan was informed as per the wish of arrestee Ghanshyam and he had affixed his signature on the copy of said memo. 14. It appears from the material available on record that thereafter, necessary papers relating to registration of complaint under Section 122 [c] of the Bombay Police Act were forwarded to Kareli Baug Police Station where PSO-Jesingbhai Chhitabhai had on 3rd July 2005 at 00:45 hours registered a complaint, being C.R No. II-122/2005 under Section 122 [c] of the Bombay Police Act, against accused-Ghanshyam Balumal Dasani and put him in the police lock-up with the help of Asstt. Police Constable Mukesh Thakorlal of Kareli Baug Police Station. 15. Police Constable Mukesh Thakorlal of Kareli Baug Police Station. 15. It also appears from the material produced on the record that along with the said Ghanshyambhai, three other accused persons were also in the Police lockup at Kareli Baug Police Station and these arrestees where – [1] Malay Atulbhai Patel [arrested under Sections 66B, 65E, 81 of the Prohibition Act in connection with offence registered as C.R No. III-339/2005]; [2] Rakesh Narayan Patel [arrested in connection with the aforestated offence on 2nd July 2005 at 5:10 pm]; and [3] Mahendra Chiranjeevilal Sharma [arrested on 2nd July 2005 at 7:20 pm in connection with C.R No. III-340/05 for the offence punishable under Sections 66B, 65E of the Prohibition Act]. The deceased-arrestee Ghanshyambhai was arrested and put up in lock-up room of Kareli Baug Police Station on 3rd July 2005 at 00:50 hours onwards and ASO informed the Police Control Room at Vadodara accordingly. Thus, deceased-Ghanshyambhai was put in the lockup room alongwith three other accused persons named above. 16. As per the say of respondents, all the four accused persons were talking amongst themselves, however, accused Ghanshyambhai was found extremely frightened and on being asked by co-inmates, it was stated by him that he was wanted in another serious offence and henceforth he will not be in a position to come out from jail in his entire life, as he will have to spent his remaining life in jail. It was further stated by him that he was wanted in a case of dacoity and now when he has been nabbed, he would not be in a position to get out from the prisons. 17. It appears that thereafter, all the four arrestees went on to sleep, however, at around 4:00 am, arrestee-Malay Atulbhai Patel, when woke up to attend the nature's call, noticed that Ghanshyambhai had hanged himself on an iron door in the lockup. He woke up co-inmate Rakesh Narayan Patel and also raised alarm whereupon PSO Head Constable Jesingbhai and Police Constable Mukesh Thakorlal rushed towards the lockup room. It was found by them that arrestee-Ghanshyam had used mattress provided to him in police lockup for sleeping, to hang himself on the iron door through a long strip of the said mattress torn vertically and used for the purpose of hanging. It was found by them that arrestee-Ghanshyam had used mattress provided to him in police lockup for sleeping, to hang himself on the iron door through a long strip of the said mattress torn vertically and used for the purpose of hanging. Statement of Malay Atulbhai Patel came to be recorded and AD was registered, being 20 of 2005 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, it appears from the record that investigation was undertaken by PSI-J.R Waghela, who was on duty at Karelibaug Police Station. Consequently, senior officers were informed alongwith authorities at Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to custodial death of arrestee Ghanshyam Balumal Dasani. Executive Magistrate and Mamlatdar, Vadodara were also informed and in their presence, Inquest Panchnama was drawn. 18. It also comes on record that family members of the deceased arrestee were also informed and as per instructions from FSL authorities, muddamal was collected/seized and sent for forensic analysis. It also reveals from record that necessary videography was also carried out and autopsy was also conducted. 19. It further appears from the record that Asstt. Commissioner of Police, “C” Division also investigated into the said matter and thereby recorded statements of three arrestees who were present in the lockup room with the deceased-Ghanshyambhai. It does appear from the record that the said Police Officer also recorded statements of all the five officers of Vadodara City, North Zone Squad who were patrolling at night, when the deceased came to be intercepted by them on his suspicious movement. It also appears from the record that statement of relatives of the deceased viz., [i] Ashokbhai Balumal Dasani [brother of the deceased]; [ii] Pushpaben, W/o. Balubhai Hansrajmal Dasani [mother of the deceased]; [iii] Soniben, daughter of Balubhai Hansrajmal Dasani [sister of the deceased]; [iv] Mayaben, daughter of Balubhai Hansrajmal Dasani and [v] Shyam Kishanchand Dulani [brother-in-law of the deceased] were recorded. 20. It also appears from the record that further statements of entire staff of Kareli Baug Police Station and Gajendra Punambhai Chauhan, who was first informed about the arrest of the deceased, have also been recorded. After completing investigation into the matter, nothing incriminating was found and it was opined by Asstt. Commissioner of Police that it was a case of suicide, whereunder the death of arrestee was caused due to asphyxia. 21. After completing investigation into the matter, nothing incriminating was found and it was opined by Asstt. Commissioner of Police that it was a case of suicide, whereunder the death of arrestee was caused due to asphyxia. 21. As required under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in every custodial death, Executive Magistrate is required to be informed and accordingly in the case on hands, it appears that requisite procedure was followed and inquest panchnama was drawn in his presence which shows that there were no injury marks on the body of the deceased-Ghanshyam. The said panchnama records that over the neck, skin of the deceased was found pressed and the colour of the skin appeared blackish. That, there was a slight abrasion on the skin below the knee and few blood stains were found there. That, brother of the deceased named Ashokbhai Lalchand Dasani was present when the inquest panchnama was drawn. The dead body of the deceased Ghanshyam was identified by his brother and inquest panchnama was drawn by the Executive Magistrate in presence of two witnesses. 22. It further appears from the record that Forensic Science Laboratory authorities had also visited the place where the deceased committed suicide, and as per their directions, panchnama of the place was drawn and mattress, rain coat and belt were seized/collected for scientific analysis. It also appears from the record that post mortem of deceased was performed by the panel Doctor and on receiving the report, the cause was ascertained as “death due to asphyxia” caused by hanging. 23. Analyzing statement of co-inmates who were in the lockup at Kareli Baug Police Station alongwith deceased-Ghanshyambhai, it appears from the version of Malay Atulbhai Patel, who was booked for an offence punishable under Sections 66-B, 65-E, 81 of the Prohibition Act by the sleuths on 2nd July 2005 at 17:10 hours that Rakesh Narayanbhai Patel and Mahendra C Sharma were already in the same lockup and whereas, deceased was put up in the lock up at 1:00 am. As per statement of Malay Atulbhai Patel that on being brought to the lock up, the deceased appeared extremely frightened and was sitting in the lock up and crying. As per statement of Malay Atulbhai Patel that on being brought to the lock up, the deceased appeared extremely frightened and was sitting in the lock up and crying. When asked, he had informed Rakesh Narayan Patel and Malay Atulbhai Patel that since past 2-3 years, Police was searching him in connection with an offence of dacoity and now since he has been arrested, he will have to spend entire life in jail and may not be able to get out of jail. All the other three accused in the lockup room alongwith the deceased have stated that perhaps it was on account of this apprehension that the deceased had committed suicide. 24. Statement of the petitioner no. 1-Ashokbhai was also recorded, who happens to be brother of the deceased. He has stated that a fruit vendor named Shyambhai had informed him that two police personnels have taken the deceased in an autorickshaw from/near Subhash Park corner. To co-relate his version, statement of the said fruit vendor named Shyambhai also appears to have been taken wherein he has stated that due to heavy rains and flood on 2nd July 2005, he had not gone to his fruit stall and that he was in his house the entire day. This so-called witness named Shyambhai has denied having informed brother of the deceased about interception of his brother at the hands of police personnels. He further states that he had learnt about the death of deceased on the next day, through newspaper. Thus, the allegation made by the complainant is not substantiated by the statements of the said fruit vendor-Shyambhai. 25. In the inquest panchnama drawn by Executive Magistrate, nowhere there is mention of any injury marks on the body of the deceased. Even the inquest panchnama is completely silent with regard to any bruises caused due to beating on any part of the body. Now, as per the allegations made by the complainant, he had seen the body of his deceased brother which was bearing injury marks all over the body and it was in the naked condition. It appears that during the inquest panchnama, clothes on the body were removed, as it was part of the inquest procedure and hence finding body of the deceased in a naked condition was natural. Muddamal items were collected from the place where the deceased committed suicide and they were sent for scientific analysis. It appears that during the inquest panchnama, clothes on the body were removed, as it was part of the inquest procedure and hence finding body of the deceased in a naked condition was natural. Muddamal items were collected from the place where the deceased committed suicide and they were sent for scientific analysis. The certificate received from FSL indicates that the tensile strength was more than 90 kilograms and no blood or seamen marks were found on the clothes of the deceased. 26. Thereafter, it appears that as per communication No. HRC/2005 [29] 5353 dated 18th July 2005 of the Home Department, inquiry into the matter was entrusted to a Magistrate; as provided under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, the said inquiry was duly conducted by Shri Nimesh Dave, Sub-Divisional Magistrate [SDM]. As per the conclusion drawn by the Magistrate, for unknown reasons the deceased has committed suicide. While concluding so, the reports states that the allegations of the complainant so far as two persons having taken the deceased in an auto-rickshaw were concerned, these are required to be investigated into. Thereafter, Additional Director General of Police, CID Crime vide his Order No. 130/2007 dated 16th May 2007 entrusted investigation to Detective Police Inspector, CID Crime who looked into the specific allegation of the complainant in respect of deceased having been booked by the Police personnels at 3:00 pm on 2nd July 2005. The said allegation, however, is not borne out from any investigation which were carried out by various Officers. 27. Thus, in all, three independent agencies had looked into the allegations raised by the complainant-brother of the deceased viz., [i] Sub-Divisional Magistrate; [ii] Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadodara and [iii] Detective Police Inspector, CID Crime Branch [at the instance and orders of Additional Director General of Police, CID Crime], however, nothing objectionable which merits any further investigation culls out from the opinion given by these three authorities; except the conclusive opinion that it was a case of suicide by hanging, whereunder death had occurred due to “Asphyxia”. 28. Thus, the allegations made by brother of the deceased were not borne out from any investigation which were proved by inquest panchanama, postmortem report and FSL report. It is also certified by the Forensic Science Laboratory authorities that the opinion given by the authorities who had conducted the post mortem was right and proper. 29. 28. Thus, the allegations made by brother of the deceased were not borne out from any investigation which were proved by inquest panchanama, postmortem report and FSL report. It is also certified by the Forensic Science Laboratory authorities that the opinion given by the authorities who had conducted the post mortem was right and proper. 29. From the post mortem report and the findings recorded by three different investigating agencies that the cause of death of deceased was due to suicide committed by hanging. As per the conclusion of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara under Inquiry No. 10 of 2005, while the deceased was put up in the lockup room, he was quite well and sound and after putting him in police lock up room, no inquiry was made to him by the police personnels nor any physical cruelty was caused to him. 30. From the statements of the Police Officers recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, no inquiry was made to the deceased after putting him in a lock up room. As per the routine custom of the Police Station, if any case would be registered against any accused, statements of accused or further proceedings would be carried out by the investigating team. No preliminary statement of the deceased was recorded by the Police Officer or PSO of North Zone Squad, nor any further investigation was carried out. None of the police officers were knowing deceased Ghanshyambhai or they had any occasion to meet him previously. In respect of any previous offence registered against the deceased or whether he was wanted in any offence committed by him, they had no information. After arrest of the deceased, as per his wish, Gajendra Punambhai Chauhan was informed and the signature of the deceased was obtained on the memo of arrest. The said Gajendra Punambhai Chauhan has also supported in his statement in respect of his serving with an arrest memo of the deceased Ghanshaymbhai. Of course, due to circumstances beyond his control, he was not in a position to inform anyone at the residence of Ghanshyambhai. Nonetheless, he has identified his signature in the arrest memo. 31. It appears that thereafter, after arresting accused-Ghanshyambhai, arrest memo was served to his friend Gajendrabhai. Of course, due to circumstances beyond his control, he was not in a position to inform anyone at the residence of Ghanshyambhai. Nonetheless, he has identified his signature in the arrest memo. 31. It appears that thereafter, after arresting accused-Ghanshyambhai, arrest memo was served to his friend Gajendrabhai. While talking with the other co-accused in the lock up room, it was informed by the deceased that he was wanted in an old case/offence of theft and thereafter, all the inmates in the lockup room went asleep. As per the statements of co-accused, they had not heard any voice of either opening of the doors of the lock-up room or entering of someone in the lock up room. They had also stated of not having heard any shouting by any body or any hue and cry made by anyone. There were material contradictions found by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in his Inquiry made from the statements of complainant and his relatives. The petitioner has stated that in connection with death of his younger brother, one application dated 4th July 2005 was given to the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City requesting him to register an offence against the Police Inspector, Head Constable and other police personnels on duty. The said application was prepared by an advocate. While putting his signature on the said application, complainant is stated to have been under mental shock and hence, he was not aware about the details made out in the application, but his signature was identified by him before the Inquiring authority. He has stated in his statement that his brother has not returned back to the residence upto night and therefore, he had a doubt of his death. But, he has not created any doubt against a particular person or police personnel because he had no other information. However, it was requested by him to make a detailed inquiry in respect of death of his brother. From the opinion of the Doctor who performed post morterm of deceased Ghanshyambhai as well as Inquest panchnama report of FSL, Surat, it was found that the cause of death was due to hanging. 32. However, it was requested by him to make a detailed inquiry in respect of death of his brother. From the opinion of the Doctor who performed post morterm of deceased Ghanshyambhai as well as Inquest panchnama report of FSL, Surat, it was found that the cause of death was due to hanging. 32. Here, this Court would like to reproduce the relevant observations/findings of inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which reads thus- [a] that there is no injury on the body of the deceased; except neck injury, which is due to hanging; [b] that, the petitioner have not given the name of any of the person on whom the doubt can be created regarding his death; [c] that the persons who took away the accused in a rickshaw were not in a dress of Police. They were in regular dress of common citizen. 33. Thus, before effecting arrest of deceased- Ghanshyambhai, specific procedure which was required to be followed by the concerned police personnels, was followed. However, the fact remains that the arrestee committed suicide in the lock up, giving leeway to accusations against the police personnels. 34. In a magisterial inquiry ordered under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara arrived at a finding that the cause of death of arrestee Ghanshyam was due to suicide committed by him in a lock-up room of Kareli Baug Police Station, Vadodara. However, on the aspect of allegations levelled against the police personnels who intercepted arrestee-Ghanshyam and took him in an auto rickshaw, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate concluded that the said issue requires a detailed investigation. 35. Thus, from the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara, it culls out that the death of arrestee-Ghyanshyam Balumal Dasani was due to hanging/due to “Asphyxia”. 36. Undoubtedly, custodial death of an arrestee is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society which is governed by the rule of law, however, the case on hand in no way suggests that it was a custodial crime, or any form of torture or cruelty, or for that matter any kind of inhuman or degrading treatment which falls within inhibition of Article 21 of Constitution of India because in none of the investigations carried out by different officers; including Sub Divisional Magistrate, anything incriminating against the police personnels come fore. 37. 37. In the case of D.K. Basu [Supra], the Apex Court in a petition filed under Articles 21, 22 [1], 32 & 226 of the Constitution of India which a case of custodial death and torture by police, the Hon'ble Court has issued wide ranging guidelines to be observed by the Police all throughout the country, while exercising power of arrest and confinement of a person during investigation. Apt it would be to reproduce the anguish expressed by the Bench in para 22 of its decision, which reads thus:- “22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the Rule of Law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 [1] of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot whisk away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law into himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilized nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizens shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him ? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest ? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'No'. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under-trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by laws.” 38. In the case of Ajab Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 3421 , while considering plea for compensation in a case of custodial death, the Apex Court directed the State Government to pay rupees five lakhs as compensation to the legal representatives of deceased, making it further clear that direction to pay compensation would be without prejudice to rights of legal representatives of victim to claim compensation in private law proceedings; if so entitled. 39. 39. Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Lok Adhikar Sangh v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 [1] GLR 61 has observed and held in para 10 of its decision, thus- “10. The High Court, exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case where the allegations are with respect to a criminal case, is concerned with the performance of legal duty or the obligation of the State and its agencies. It cannot be disputed that investigation of an offence is the field exclusively belonging to police under the supervision of the Government. But if the complaint is that the investigation is not fair for any reason or the police officer has transgressed or improperly exercised or failed to exercise the power of investigation, causing serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen, it will be the duty of the High Court to issue appropriate direction which may include giving direction to register case, if the facts prima-facie, discloses a cognizable offence and further if the facts of the case so demands, the Court may keep the petition pending and regulate the investigation, without interfering with the investigation. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to identify the accused and collect all necessary evidence to prove the offence. Once that is done, the Investigating Officer is required to submit Police Report to the Court of competent jurisdiction. After the charge-sheet is filed, the Court is required to consider if the cognizance is to be taken on police report or not. It must be clearly understood that cognizance is taken of offence and not of the offender. When the accused is put to trial, the Court concerned itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Thus, there being clear-cut and well demarcated sphere, at this stage, it is not for this Court to make any enquiry to identify the accused. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 i.e. Mr. Jitendra Rajgor has committed the crime of murder and the contention of Mr. S.V. Raju that the said respondent i.e. Jitendra Rajgor is innocent, is not required to be gone into in depth. We are required only to consider as to whether prima facie the allegations disclose a case constituting a cognizable offence. Jitendra Rajgor has committed the crime of murder and the contention of Mr. S.V. Raju that the said respondent i.e. Jitendra Rajgor is innocent, is not required to be gone into in depth. We are required only to consider as to whether prima facie the allegations disclose a case constituting a cognizable offence. If so, the next question arises is as to whether the case has been fairly investigated? In fact an accused does not come into picture at this stage, and such a suspect is not required to be heard, even if the petitioner has made such suspect party-respondent. As a result of any directions of the High Court in such matters, if a person entertains apprehension that he may be arrested or charge-sheeted, he has remedy under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. He may apply under section 438, for anticipatory bail and satisfy the Court that there is no case against him, and if the charge-sheet has been filed against him, he may satisfy the court that there is no case against him and as such, no charge be framed. Such applications will be decided by the courts concerned without being influenced of the order of the High Court, passed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution on such petition, unless there is any direction otherwise. But he cannot be heard on the point as to whether any direction should be given for registering the case or not. A FIR can always be registered, even without asking the suspect or accused. In view of this, respondent No.2 who can only said to be a suspect in the case, is not a necessary party. At the most he may be a proper party, but he cannot claim audience as of right. Thus, the contentions of Mr. Raju on merit of the case does not require any consideration at this stage.” 40. From the reading of various decisions referred to above and the material produced on record, it emerges that when custodial death occurred at Kareli Baug Police Station, the respondent-through Police Officers immediately reported the incident to the higher authorities and prompt action was taken. Investigation was conducted with promptitude by the Investigating Officer who was looking into the matter without influence of anyone. Investigating Agency twice and Magisterial Inquiry had investigated the issue in detail. Investigation was conducted with promptitude by the Investigating Officer who was looking into the matter without influence of anyone. Investigating Agency twice and Magisterial Inquiry had investigated the issue in detail. None of the witnesses examined during magisterial inquiry have supported the allegations of the complainant/petitioner, nor does the same corroborates with the medical evidence. There is no reasonable ground for the petitioner, being a family member of the victim/deceased to suspect a foul play or there can be a ground for the Court to consider for transfer of investigation to an independent investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation; as requested by the petitioner. The High Court would not exercise such powers just for asking, since such powers are to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. CBI is a premier investigating agency of the country and unless there are compelling reasons and there is no option available, it should not be unnecessary overloaded, otherwise it may affect its efficiency. In this case, there is no clear or incontrovertible evidence about custodial torture, nor any medical report of any injury or disability. The grievance of the petitioners [complainant] is against different officers of Kareli Baug Police Station, who were serving at the relevant point of time. More importantly, several of the allegations are proved to be exaggerated and false, and therefore, this Court do not consider this to be a fit case for award of compensation. 41. With the aforesaid observations, the present Special Criminal Application is dismissed, as no further relief/directions are called for. Rule nisi stands discharged with no order as to costs. 42. It is, however, made clear that this Order will not come in the way of any civil court awarding compensation in an action in tort, or the criminal court awarding compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in any pending prosecution against any of the officers, if the charges are established.