JUDGMENT : T.V. Nalawade, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed for relief of compensation on the ground that police acted illegally, harassed the petitioner and illegally took from him the legal documents on the basis of which the petitioner was entitled to recover the money. According to the petitioner, at the instance of one Sanjay Ambhure, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sanjay’ for short), this illegal action was taken by police and by giving threats of prosecution for offences punishable under sections 354, 384 etc. of Indian Penal Code, police misused the power and took away the documents. Initially the relief of directions to start departmental inquiry against respondent No. 4, who took the documents from the petitioner was also claimed, but by order dated 24.1.20218 this Court (other bench) refused to entertain the petition for that relief. The relief of direction to respondent No. 4 that he should return the documents taken over from the petitioner is also claimed in the present proceeding, but as per the record, the documents were handed over to Sanjay Ambhure on the day on which they were taken over from the petitioner and Sanjay is not noticed of the present proceeding and due to the record, it cannot be said that the petitioner has pressed the relief against Sanjay. Thus, this matter is being considered only for the relief of getting compensation on the basis of aforesaid ground, the police atrocities. 3. It is the contention of petitioner that due to friendly relations of the petitioner with Sanjay, the petitioner had given hand loan of Rs.6.5 lakh to Sanjay on 7.1.2015. It is contended that the transaction was recorded in a document and the document was notorised. It is contended that subsequently also, the amount of Rs.8 lakh was given by the petitioner to Sanjay, but no record was created in respect of that amount. 4. It is the contention of petitioner that Sanjay was working as a contractor and he was in the business of construction and he wanted the money for that business. It is contended that Sanjay had promised to return the money within few days as per the agreement and after getting the bills of his work which were to be cleared by Zilla Parishad. It is contended that Sanjay had promised to return the money within few days as per the agreement and after getting the bills of his work which were to be cleared by Zilla Parishad. It is contended that as the amount was not returned within the period mentioned in the agreement, the petitioner insisted Sanjay for returning of the amount. It is contended that due to insistence of the petitioner, on 25.5.2016 Sanjay gave cheque drawn on his account bearing No.071631 of the amount of Rs.6.5 lakh for making the payment of the amount mentioned in the written agreement. There was promise to return the amount, but Sanjay had said that he had no sufficient money on the day of issue of the cheque and he had requested the petitioner not to deposit the cheque for some time. It is contended that due to such request of Sanjay, the cheque was not immediately deposited for encashment in the bank by the petitioner. 5. It is the contention of petitioner that Sanjay then started avoiding him and he stopped receiving the phone calls made by the petitioner. It is contended that on 12.8.2016 the petitioner received a call from police and police asked him to come to the office of Police Commissioner, Aurangabad. It is contended that when he went to the office, he was told by respondent No. 4 P.S.I. that the complaint was lodged against petitioner by Sanjay. It is contended that in the office of Police Commissioner Sanjay and his wife were also present. It is contended that threats were given to him to file case like defamation if the documents of agreement and cheque were not returned to Sanjay. It is contended that initially respondent No. 4 represented that after inquiry he will return the original documents and due to that promise, he handed over the cheque and notorised document to respondent No. 4. It is contended that respondent No. 4 then obtained undertaking in the form of police statement from the petitioner that the transaction between the petitioner and Sanjay had come to an end. 6. It is the contention of petitioner that on the aforesaid date, Sanjay had orally promised to return the amount of petitioner by March 2017. It is contended that the amount is not returned by Sanjay and the documents are not returned by respondent No. 4. 6. It is the contention of petitioner that on the aforesaid date, Sanjay had orally promised to return the amount of petitioner by March 2017. It is contended that the amount is not returned by Sanjay and the documents are not returned by respondent No. 4. It is contended that petitioner requested to respondent No. 4 to return the documents as the petitioner was not in a position to file complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, but respondent No. 4 did not return the documents to petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner then realised that respondent No. 4 was acting at the instance of Sanjay and he was trying to protect Sanjay from the enforcement of civil liability of Sanjay. 7. It is the contention of petitioner that till the date of petition, no crime was registered in respect of those documents or on the basis of complaint of Sanjay against him. It is contended that by misusing the power police took away his legal documents and due to that, he has suffered loss as he is not in a position to enforce his right of recovery of money. 8. It is the contention of petitioner that he approached respondent No. 2, Police Commissioner and he gave complaints to him about the aforesaid illegal acts on 22.5.2017 and 11.8.2017, but no action was taken by Police Commissioner. It is the contention of petitioner that he was required to file Criminal Writ Petition No. 1240/2017 for direction to Police Commissioner to take decision on the aforesaid two complaints given by the petitioner and then direction was given by this Court. It is contended that Police Commissioner directed respondent No. 3 Assistant Police Commissioner to make inquiry and then it was informed to petitioner that there was no substance in the complaints given by the petitioner. 9. It is the contention of petitioner that police had no authority to ask the petitioner to hand over the legal documents in respect of civil liability of Sanjay but police misused their powers. It is contended that respondent No. 4 is from Police Department and due to that circumstance, even after making of the complaints by the petitioner, no action is taken by Police Commissioner against respondent No. 4. By making these contentions, aforesaid reliefs are claimed. 10. Copies of complaints given by petitioner to Police Commissioner are produced on record. It is contended that respondent No. 4 is from Police Department and due to that circumstance, even after making of the complaints by the petitioner, no action is taken by Police Commissioner against respondent No. 4. By making these contentions, aforesaid reliefs are claimed. 10. Copies of complaints given by petitioner to Police Commissioner are produced on record. The contents of the complaints are mostly as per the aforesaid contentions made by the petitioner. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint dated 22.5.2017 that he had gone to the office of Police Commissioner as there was message from police that he was to remain present there. In the complaint, it is mentioned that threat was given to him that wife of Sanjay would give complaint that petitioner had committed offence of molestation punishable under section 354 of I.P.C. It was contended in the complaint that due to such threat, he had become frightened. 11. Copy of order made in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1240/2017 dated 28.9.2017 is on record. This order shows that direction was given to Police Commissioner to make inquiry into the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint dated 22.5.2017. There is copy of communication dated 24.10.2017 signed by A.P.I. Satodkar and this communication shows that following decision was communicated to the petitioner. “On 6.8.2016 Sanjay had given complaint against the petitioner and eleven other persons and due to that petitioner had returned the cheque and bond. In the statement of petitioner dated 12.8.2016 there is mention that petitioner was returning the cheque and the bond. No substance was found in the allegations made by the present petitioner against police that pressure tactics were used against him. When inquiry was made in to the complaint, it revealed that there was hand loan transaction between petitioner and Sanjay. That the dispute was of civil nature and the present petitioner was trying to recover the money by making such complaint, so no action was possible on the basis of such complaint.” 12. Respondent No. 4, Police Officer against whom there are allegations has filed reply affidavit. His contentions are as follows:- (i) There was complaint given to Police Commissioner dated 6.8.2016 by Sanjay that the petitioner and eleven other persons were harassing Sanjay and they were attempting to extract money from him. (ii) Police Commissioner had directed respondent No. 4 to make inquiry in to the complaint dated 6.8.2016. His contentions are as follows:- (i) There was complaint given to Police Commissioner dated 6.8.2016 by Sanjay that the petitioner and eleven other persons were harassing Sanjay and they were attempting to extract money from him. (ii) Police Commissioner had directed respondent No. 4 to make inquiry in to the complaint dated 6.8.2016. (iii) During inquiry, on 12.8.2016 the petitioner was called and the statement of petitioner was recorded. It revealed from the statement that petitioner had returned already the alleged cheque and document of agreement to Sanjay. (iv) On 17.8.2016 Sanjay was called by respondent No. 4 for inquiry and Sanjay gave statement that the petitioner and nine other persons had approached Sanjay and they had returned the documents like cheques and agreements and so, he was not having complaint against the petitioner and others. (v) On 17.8.2016 respondent No. 4 recorded statement of wife of Sanjay and she also expressed that she had no complaint against the petitioner and other persons. (vi) After inquiry, respondent No. 4 had submitted report to Police Inspector of Special Branch on 21.10.2016. (vii) It is not true that respondent No. 4 gave threats to petitioner and due to that, documents were handed over by petitioner to respondent No. 4. It is not true that respondent No. 4 had assured to return the documents after inquiry was over. (viii) The documents were not in custody of respondent No. 4. (ix) The Assistant Police Superintendent made inquiry into the complaint made by the petitioner against him and he exonerated respondent No. 4 in that inquiry. Copy of report prepared by Inquiry Officer dated 24.10.2017 is supplied to respondent No. 4 and on the said report, respondent No. 4 was relying. 13. Rameshwar Thorat, Assistant Commissioner of Police (respondent No. 3) filed reply in this proceeding on 6.2.2018. The contentions of respondent No. 3 are as under:- (i) Sanjay had given complaint to Police Commissioner dated 1.8.2016 against the petitioner and others. (Though the date of complaint is 1.8.2016, the endorsement shows that it was received by Commissioner on 6.8.2016). (ii) For inquiry of complaint dated 1.8.2016 respondent No. 4 had called the petitioner to the office. (iii) Petitioner gave statement to respondent No. 4 on 12.8.2016 that the petitioner was going to return the cheque and bond to Sanjay and there was no dispute regarding money between them. (ii) For inquiry of complaint dated 1.8.2016 respondent No. 4 had called the petitioner to the office. (iii) Petitioner gave statement to respondent No. 4 on 12.8.2016 that the petitioner was going to return the cheque and bond to Sanjay and there was no dispute regarding money between them. (iv) During inquiry made by respondent No. 4, Sanjay gave statement on 17.8.2016 that except Harjitsing Arora and Sadashiv Patil, all other persons, 10 in number, had returned the cheques and documents of agreement to Sanjay. (v) In the statement of petitioner dated 12.8.2016, petitioner had assured to return the cheque to Sanjay on that day. This return was confirmed by statement of Sanjay dated 17.8.2016. (vi) As per the directions given by High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1240/2017 the Commissioner asked A.P.I. Satodkar to make inquiry into the allegations made by present petitioner. In that inquiry, it is concluded that there were financial transactions between the petitioner and Sanjay and between Sanjay and other persons and other remedies were available to the parties. It was civil transaction and the allegations made by petitioner against respondents, police officers, are false. 14. Copies of statements recorded by respondent No. 4 of petitioner and of Sanjay dated 12.8.2016 and 17.8.2016 are on record. The statement of petitioner is consistent with the allegations made in the petition. There was acquaintance of 20 years between petitioner and Sanjay and out of that acquaintance money was given by petitioner to Sanjay as hand loan. The petitioner was then bed ridden for some time due to motor vehicle accident and during illness, the brother of petitioner had gone to the house of Sanjay, but Sanjay had refused to return money. It is specifically mentioned in the statement dated 12.8.2016 of the petitioner that he was returning the cheque and bond to Sanjay, there was no other transaction between them and by returning the documents, he was bringing this transactions also to an end. From this statement, it can be apparently said that cheque and bond were taken from the petitioner during inquiry. On the statement, respondent No. 4 is shown as the Police Officer recording statement and he has mentioned that he was P.S.I. of Special Branch, Aurangabad. 15. The statement of Sanjay dated 17.8.2016 recorded by respondent No. 4 shows that Sanjay admitted that he had taken hand loan from petitioner and other persons. On the statement, respondent No. 4 is shown as the Police Officer recording statement and he has mentioned that he was P.S.I. of Special Branch, Aurangabad. 15. The statement of Sanjay dated 17.8.2016 recorded by respondent No. 4 shows that Sanjay admitted that he had taken hand loan from petitioner and other persons. In the police statement, Sanjay had contended that on 5.8.2016 due to insistence of his wife, he had given complaint to Police Commissioner against the petitioner and other 11 persons. This statement of Sanjay shows that the persons against whom he had given complaint were called in the office of Commissioner and in the presence of Sanjay and his wife, police had recorded statements of those persons. The statement of Sanjay further shows that before police he had demanded back the cheques and bonds and 10 out of 12 persons had returned those documents immediately during inquiry. Only two persons like Harjitsing and Sadashiv had said that they will not return the documents unless their money was returned by Sanjay. The statement of Sanjay shows that even if the documents and cheques were returned to him, he was promising to return the money of these persons by selling his house. His statement shows that he and his wife were withdrawing the complaints given against these 12 persons. This statement of Sanjay clearly shows that in the presence of respondent No. 4, Sanjay had taken the documents from the petitioner. 16. The aforesaid two statements of petitioner and Sanjay are sufficient to infer that only due to intervention of police and as there was possibility shown by police of registering crime against the petitioner on the basis of complaints given by Sanjay and his wife, the cheque and the document of agreement were returned by the petitioner. 17. Inquiry report dated 24.10.2017 prepared by A.P.I. Satodkar which was done after order of High Court shows that it was not an attempt to ascertain the truth in to the allegations. There was allegation that there was misuse of police power and this point was not touched in the inquiry. The report shows that A.P.I. Shri. Satodkar considered the statements recorded by A.P.I. Kotwale in the past and they were of both Sanjay and the petitioner. These statements were recorded in May. There was allegation that there was misuse of police power and this point was not touched in the inquiry. The report shows that A.P.I. Shri. Satodkar considered the statements recorded by A.P.I. Kotwale in the past and they were of both Sanjay and the petitioner. These statements were recorded in May. Before Kotwale, Sanjay had contended that he had returned the money of petitioner and other 9 persons with 30% interest which was charged per month, but the documents were not returned to him. Thus, subsequently after giving the complaint to Commissioner in August an attempt was made to collect the documents, but in August Sanjay admitted that he had not returned the money and no interest was charged by these persons. Apparently, Sanjay wanted to take back these documents as on the basis of these documents legal action could have been taken by these persons and for that police helped him. Further, in the past, in May when no action was taken by police and Sanjay was not believed, it was necessary for police to explain the things done in August. 18. Shri. Satodkar also recorded statement of petitioner and this statement shows that Sanjay had offered to give new cheque of Rs.6.5 lakh to the petitioner, but the petitioner was not sure that Sanjay would return the amount within six months and so, he was not ready to settle the matter. 19. Shri. Satodkar recorded statement of respondent No. 4 during inquiry. In the statement, respondent No. 4 contended that the documents were not returned to Sanjay by petitioner in his presence. This statement of respondent No. 4 is not consistent with the statements which were recorded of petitioner, Sanjay and wife of Sanjay by respondent No. 4. 20. Shri. Satodkar considered the aforesaid statements of petitioner and Sanjay dated 12.8.2016 and 17.8.2016. Shri. Satodkar recorded more statements like the statement of wife of Sanjay. On the basis of this statement, he formed opinion that due to complaints given to Police Commissioner by Sanjay, 10 persons had returned the documents voluntarily and they were not pressurized by the police. He has mentioned in the report that there was no threat from police and documents were not taken over under threat. Surprisingly in the report, Shri. Satodkar has mentioned that in the statement dated 12.8.2016 the petitioner ought to have mentioned about such threat. He has mentioned in the report that there was no threat from police and documents were not taken over under threat. Surprisingly in the report, Shri. Satodkar has mentioned that in the statement dated 12.8.2016 the petitioner ought to have mentioned about such threat. This observation of Satodkar itself shows that he was bent upon to see that no Police Officer becomes liable for whatever was done by them. The entire record is sufficient to infer that only due to pressure exercised by police by using allegations which this Court is mentioning hereinafter, the documents were returned by the petitioner. Satodkar has mentioned that for about 9 months after about 12.8.2016 no complaint was given by petitioner and that shows that there was no pressure from police. This observation also cannot be accepted. There is record that there was promise from Sanjay to return money. Further, police were involved in the matter. Further, he was not having documents with him on the basis of which he could have taken civil action against Sanjay and so, he must not have dared to make such complaint. If the petitioner waited for some time with the hope that he will get money as police had intervened, it cannot be said that this circumstance can be used against the petitioner. 21. The complaint of Sanjay due to which police took action is on record. Though it is dated 1.8.2016, the endorsement shows that it was received by office of Police Commissioner on 6.8.2016. In this complaint, Sanjay had contended that he had returned the money to all the 12 creditors, but the cheques and documents of agreement were not returned to him and those persons were likely to misuse that record against him. Allegations were made by Sanjay that all these 12 persons were giving threat and they were harassing Sanjay and his family. He had contended that he had fear that something will be done against him and his family by these 12 persons. This complaint shows that there was probably some plan as the complaint was given on 6.8.2016 though it was prepared on 1.8.2016. For strengthening of this probability, there is so called suicide note which was prepared by wife of Sanjay and it is dated 5.8.2016. This suicide note was also addressed to Commissioner of Police. This complaint shows that there was probably some plan as the complaint was given on 6.8.2016 though it was prepared on 1.8.2016. For strengthening of this probability, there is so called suicide note which was prepared by wife of Sanjay and it is dated 5.8.2016. This suicide note was also addressed to Commissioner of Police. In that suicide note, she had made allegations that two persons like Manoj and Shagun were giving threats and these persons had obtained something in writing from Sanjay. She had contended that her husband was not in a position to give even interest on the amount taken and Sanjay had made her life miserable and there was danger to their life. Copy of application given on 5.8.2016 by Sanjay to P.S.O. of Pravara Sangam Police Station, Ahmednagar shows that his wife was found at Kaigaon and it was informed to him that she was there to commit suicide. This application dated 5.8.2016 of Sanjay shows that his wife was given in his custody. All these circumstances show that Office of Police Commissioner was used to prevent recovery of money by all the 12 persons named in the complaint by Sanjay and for that, documents were taken over from 10 persons. 22. There are statements of Manoj and Shagun dated 13.8.2016 and they show that they also returned the documents of agreement of sale made by Sanjay and they gave in writing that their amount of Rs.45 lakh was returned to them. The aforesaid record shows that Sanjay was not in a position to return any money, but such statements were created by police. Though these two persons are not before the Court, to ascertain as to what was done by police for Sanjay and his wife, these statements can be considered in a proceeding like present one. 23. On record, there is one more police statement of Sanjay dated 13.8.2016. It was also recorded by respondent No. 4. This statement does not fnd mentioned in the inquiry report submitted by Shri. Satodkar. In this statement, Sanjay had contended that transaction between him and the petitioner was completed and that is why the documents were returned to him. 23. On record, there is one more police statement of Sanjay dated 13.8.2016. It was also recorded by respondent No. 4. This statement does not fnd mentioned in the inquiry report submitted by Shri. Satodkar. In this statement, Sanjay had contended that transaction between him and the petitioner was completed and that is why the documents were returned to him. In the report dated 21.10.2016 which was submitted by respondent No. 4 to Police Inspector of Special Branch, he informed that to avoid the repayment of loan and to avoid legal action which can be taken due to bouncing of cheque, Sanjay had made false allegations against petitioner and others. He gave opinion that Sanjay had falsely contended in the original complaint dated 6.8.2016 that on interest loan was taken by Sanjay from these persons. The report shows that threat to commit suicide was given by wife of Sanjay only with the intention to avoid legal action. These circumstances show that a weak attempt was made probably subsequently to create record like statement dated 13.8.2016 when there was no scope to change the things. 24. There is one more police statement of Sanjay dated 9.9.2017 recorded by Satodkar and it shows that Sanjay was ready to give cheque No. 104040 for Rs.6.5 lakh to the petitioner. There is record like photocopy of agreement dated 7.1.2015 showing that Sanjay had promised to return the amount of Rs.6.5 lakh within 30 days from the date of the agreement. It is already observed that the first cheque bearing No.071631 for Rs.6.5 lakh was dated 25.5.2016. 25. The aforesaid circumstances show that by using police Sanjay took back the documents and cheques on which legal action was possible against him. He was changing his version time and again. Even when he was in dues of the money, he got created police statements showing that his legal liability had come to an end. 26. There are many other circumstances showing that it was probably pre-planed action against the persons who wanted to recover money from Sanjay. The complaint was given by Sanjay to Police Commissioner on 6.8.2016 against petitioner and 11 other persons that they were harassing him and they were trying to compel him to give money which he was not liable to pay. Thus, there was indirect allegation that there was an attempt of extortion. The complaint was given by Sanjay to Police Commissioner on 6.8.2016 against petitioner and 11 other persons that they were harassing him and they were trying to compel him to give money which he was not liable to pay. Thus, there was indirect allegation that there was an attempt of extortion. The word ‘extortion’ is also mentioned in complaint which was handed over to Commissioner on 6.8.2016. Police Commissioner directed respondent No. 4, P.S.I. to make inquiry. If offence of extortion was there, the complaint ought to have been referred by Police Commissioner to concerned Police Station. Sanjay is resident of Anguribag, Fakirwada, Aurangabad and so, the complaint could have been referred to the concerned police station as allegations were made that by visiting his house harassment was given by the persons who wanted to recover the money. It is cognizable offences and after registering the crime, the concerned police station could have followed the procedure given in Chapter XII of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). That was not done by Police Commissioner. In view of the act of handing over of the matter to other officer by Commissioner and informing to the petitioner that no substance was found in the allegations, it can be said that the Police Commissioner has knowledge and notice of the allegations. 27. No offence was registered which could have been done under section 154 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of complaint received on 6.8.2016. After referring complaint to police station, in ordinary course, case diary could have been prepared under section 172 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer and entries could have been made in station diary of various steps taken against persons against whom allegations were made by Sanjay. The provision of section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. shows that only when there is refusal on the part of officer in-charge of police station to record the report, the complaint can be sent to District Superintendent of Police (In the present matter the Police Commissioner) and if such Superior Police Officer like Superintendent of Police or Commissioner after perusal of complaint received under section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. is satisfied that some cognizable offence is disclosed, he can appoint police officer to make investigation. Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. runs as under:- “154. Information in cognizable cases – (1) …. (2) …. Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. runs as under:- “154. Information in cognizable cases – (1) …. (2) …. (3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence” 28. The aforesaid provision shows that it was open for the Police Commissioner to hand over the investigation of the matter to officer like respondent No. 4, but only after following the procedure given in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. The officer appointed by Commissioner also needs to follow the procedure given in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. as he gets the power of officer in-charge of police station. That power is mentioned in section 156 (1) of Cr.P.C. 29. The provision of section 157 of Cr.P.C. shows that it is the duty of officer in-charge of police station who has received the information regarding the commission of cognizable offence to send the report of the information forthwith to concerned Magistrate. The powers of Magistrate who receives such report are given in section 157 and the portion about powers of police officer is in section 157 (i)(b) and it is as under:- “157. Procedure for investigation.- (1) …. Provided that— (a) …. (b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.” The provision of section 157 of Cr.P.C. shows that it is up to the Investigating Officer to take decision as to whether he needs to investigate the matter or there is no need to investigate. He, however, needs to comply the provision of section 157 (3) of Cr.P.C. and he needs to record reasons for not making investigation and he has to report it also to concerned Magistrate. He, however, needs to comply the provision of section 157 (3) of Cr.P.C. and he needs to record reasons for not making investigation and he has to report it also to concerned Magistrate. Section 158 of Cr.P.C. shows that one more provision is there in relation to section 157 of Cr.P.C. which needs to be complied with. The provisions of sections 157 and 158 of Cr.P.C. are not empty formalities. In this regard, the provision of section 159 of Cr.P.C. needs to be read and it is as under:- “159. Power to hold investigation or preliminary inquiry.- Such Magistrate, on receiving such report, may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks ft, at once proceed, or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in the manner provided in this Code.” 30. The aforesaid provisions show that when allegation of commission of cognizable offence is made, F.I.R. is given, the Magistrate mentioned in section 157 of Cr.P.C. has also power to take some decision and everything is not left with the police. In the present matter, admittedly the Magistrate was kept in dark and there was no compliance of aforesaid provision. There was no report given under section 157 of Cr.P.C. 31. There is something more in section 157 (1) of Cr.P.C. and that portion is as under:- ““157.Procedure for investigation.- (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 or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:” This provision shows that if necessary, measures can be taken to arrest offender and for making discovery. Thus, if the documents in respect of which the dispute is there of aforesaid nature and there is allegation of extortion, the Investigating Officer is entitled to take measures and show recovery, discovery of the documents by using provision of section 27 of the Evidence Act. If the Investigating Officer wants to collect information and he wants to collect documents, he can use the provisions of sections 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C. also. In that case also, the provision of section 160 needs to be used and some record needs to be created like noticing the person concerned. In section 163 of Cr.P.C., it is made clear that no inducement or threat should come from Investigating Officer when he is recording the statement under sections 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C. 32. The provisions of Chapter V of Cr.P.C. show that the aforesaid provision of section 157 (1) of Cr.P.C. needs to be read with the provisions of this Chapter. It is already observed that the provision of sections 384 and 387 of I.P.C., the provisions in respect of extortion could have been used by police on the basis of allegations made by Sanjay in his complaint received on 6.8.2016. The maximum sentence provided for offence punishable under section 387 of I.P.C. is seven years imprisonment. For making arrest, for commission of this offence as per the provision of section 41 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., reasons need to be recorded by police. It can be said on the basis of record available that police had no intention to arrest the petitioner when petitioner was called to the office of Commissioner. In view of this circumstance, the provision of section 41 (1)(b) needs to be read with the provision of section 41-A of Cr.P.C. That provision shows that some record is required to be created. The provision of section 41-A (1)(2) of Cr.P.C. runs as under: “41-A. Notice of appearance before police officer.- (1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.” 33. There is one more provision in Cr.P.C. like provision of section 91 (1). This provision also can be used by police, if police wants to collect some documents during investigation. This provision runs as under :- “91. Summons to produce document or other thing.- (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.” 34. The aforesaid provisions show that there is ample power with police to investigate the cognizable offence, but for that necessary record needs to be created. Now it needs to be ascertained as to whether respondent No. 4 was making investigation of the complaint or he was doing something else. All the provisions show the term ‘investigation’. This term is defined in section 2 (h) of Cr.P.C. and it runs as under:- “(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf;” 35. The aforesaid provisions show that if police officer, respondent No. 4 wanted to recover documents from petitioner and other persons, he ought to have used the aforesaid provisions and he ought to have started investigation for that purpose. The record and circumstances show that none of the aforesaid provisions of Cr.P.C. were followed by respondent No. 4. It is already observed that respondent No. 4 formed opinion that Sanjay and his wife had made apparently false allegations. If the Commissioner was convinced that the allegations were making out cognizable offence, then he ought to have first seen that the crime was registered. That was not done. It is already observed that respondent No. 4 formed opinion that Sanjay and his wife had made apparently false allegations. If the Commissioner was convinced that the allegations were making out cognizable offence, then he ought to have first seen that the crime was registered. That was not done. Respondent No. 4 has come with specific case that whatever he did was done as per the instructions of Police Commissioner. The discussion shows that Police Commissioner and respondent No. 4 acted illegally and they took such steps which were not authorized by law. The record is sufficient to infer for the present proceeding that respondent No. 4 had virtually compelled the petitioner to hand over the documents like agreement and the cheque to him and he gave these documents to Sanjay. The record and circumstances are sufficient to infer for the present purpose that there was threat of implication in crime like one punishable under section 354 of I.P.C. and one punishable under section 384 of I.P.C. Though the petitioner has not mentioned these things in the petition, there is sufficient record available to draw such inference and it is already referred by this Court. 36. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner read some observations made by the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of G.B. Raj Gopal Vs. Government of A.P. [LEX (APH) 2014 (4) 14]. In that case, the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in similar circumstances laid down that such action of police cannot be called as authorized action and police need to make investigation after registering crime when there is report making out cognizable offence. This Court holds that in the present matter the steps taken by Police Commissioner and respondent No. 4 could have been taken only after registration of crime. So, whatever was done by them and which is quoted by the Court was not under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and it was illegal. 37. Considering the record like agreement of 2015 and the cheque dated 25.5.2016, it can be said that by obtaining these documents from petitioner, the petitioner was made helpless. The submission that the petitioner could have used photocopy of the documents as secondary evidence in Civil Court cannot be accepted in such a case. 37. Considering the record like agreement of 2015 and the cheque dated 25.5.2016, it can be said that by obtaining these documents from petitioner, the petitioner was made helpless. The submission that the petitioner could have used photocopy of the documents as secondary evidence in Civil Court cannot be accepted in such a case. It is true that aforesaid police statements can be used in Civil Court, but in the present matter it is necessary to ascertain as to whether a peculiar situation is created by police against the petitioner by misusing police power. The present proceeding was filed in December 2017, but the Court is deciding it in December 2020. It appears that the chances of success of petitioner on the basis of aforesaid record in Civil Court have also become blink. The point of limitation will be necessarily involved. So, this Court holds that State/police need to make good the loss. The record and circumstances are sufficient to infer that the petitioner was harassed by police by calling him to the office of Police Commissioner and by putting him under fear of implication in false criminal case of aforesaid nature. This Court holds that the provision of section 21 of Constitution of India gets attracted in the present case. It is unfortunate that even after giving directions by this Court to make inquiry, the Commissioner took it lightly and the report of aforesaid nature was given and one more attempt was made to cover up the things. We, in many cases beat the puppets when puppets have no life. Respondent No. 4 worked as puppet and he had no other choice. 38. The instances of present nature are increasing day by day. It is none of the business of police to take such steps against the persons who can take legal recourse for enforcement of their right in Civil Court. Such things are being done at the instance of higher ups or some influential persons. The persons, who have no influence become helpless when the officers of the rank of Police Commissioner does such thing. To make the police realize that they will not be spared when they indulge in such activities, this Court is directing the police to pay the compensation of Rs. Seven lakh. The persons, who have no influence become helpless when the officers of the rank of Police Commissioner does such thing. To make the police realize that they will not be spared when they indulge in such activities, this Court is directing the police to pay the compensation of Rs. Seven lakh. This amount includes the amount lost by the petitioner due to loss of the documents and also the compensation which can be given to the petitioner for harassment given to him by police. So, the following order:- ORDER I. The petition is partly allowed. Respondents No. 1, 2 (the Commissioner, who was working at the relevant time) and respondent No. 4 are to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakh only) to the petitioner as a compensation. The amount is to be deposited initially by respondent No. 1 within 45 (forty five) days from today. If the amount is not deposited within the time, it shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum. II. It is open to the State to proceed against respondents No. 2 and 4 and fasten the responsibility on them in respect of the amount, which the State is required to pay in the proceeding. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.