Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1324 (CAL)

Putul Das v. State of West Bengal

2024-07-24

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The allegation of the petitioner is very serious. Her accusation is to the effect that her son had been murdered by grave torture by police personnel at police custody. The petitioner, being the mother of the victim, visited several occasions to the Noapara police station but refused to accept a written complaint and ultimately on 23rd May, 2016 a written complaint was received by the Noapara Police Station but same was not drawn as formal First Information Report though the allegation is cognizable and serious one. The police authority did not treat the said written complaint as an FIR. 2. The petitioner made a written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate on 24th May, 2016 with a prayer to take appropriate action in the matter but despite of the said fact, no action has been taken even on such written complaint by the higher officials. 3. Having no other alternative, the mother of the victim approached the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, West Bengal and a formal complaint was made to the Human Rights Commission vide letter dated 17.06.2016 but even then, no action or investigation has been initiated with regard to the allegation of murder of her son, namely, Saumik Das. 4. She also made a written representation dated 04.06.2016 to the local Member of the Legislative Assembly informing the entire facts but even making such representation/written complaint, no result comes out to unearth the truth. 5. 4. She also made a written representation dated 04.06.2016 to the local Member of the Legislative Assembly informing the entire facts but even making such representation/written complaint, no result comes out to unearth the truth. 5. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore with a prayer for direction to treat her complaint as an FIR and cause investigation into the matter by police authorities to unearth the truth but the learned Court below was also pleased to reject the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mechanically and without considering the nature of allegations and disposed of the same on 13th June, 2016 though the allegation of the petitioner was serious and offence was cognizable, which ought to have required to register the same as an FIR for causing investigation to unearth the truth with regard to allegation of murder of Saumik Das, aged about 21 years (male), S/O Dinu Das of Ichhapur Bapuji Colony, P.S. Noapara, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 120 under the custody of police in Noapara Police Station. 6. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said rejection order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in M.P. Case No. 896/2016 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, the petitioner filed this instant application under Article 227 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for setting aside the said impugned order dated 13th June, 2016 on the grounds hereunder to treat her complaint as an FIR and cause investigation into the matter by police authorities to unearth the truth. i. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the allegation of the petitioner for investigation of the cause of death of the son of the petitioner in police custody of Noapara Police Station on 18th May, 2016. ii. The learned Magistrate also failed to appreciate the fact that the police had arrested the victim but no arrest memo had been issued upon the family members of the victim or any other persons. iii. ii. The learned Magistrate also failed to appreciate the fact that the police had arrested the victim but no arrest memo had been issued upon the family members of the victim or any other persons. iii. The learned Magistrate did not consider the factum of the case and fail to appreciate the settled proposition of law that in any allegation regarding cognizable offence, a written complaint must be treated as an FIR and cause investigation into the matter as expeditiously as possible even though a separate departmental proceeding had been initiated by the higher authority against the incumbents who were responsible for the said death of Saumik Das. iv. The learned Magistrate also failed to appreciate the rights of the petitioner under the criminal law to know actual cause of death of her son and committed gross irregularity in passing the impugned order stating therein, inter alia, as follows: “The reason for rejection that the deceased died while in custody of police. Even, for the sake of argument, if we assume that the deceased died as a result of the torture by the police personnel while in custody, the same was caused by the police personnel while in discharge of their official duties. Accordingly, it is purely a matter of departmental enquiry and not to be covered by the general criminal law of the land.” 7. The essential facts of the instant case are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this instant case are that on 18th May, 2016 at about 12.05 pm, some police personnel of Noapara Police Station had arrested the said deceased, namely, Saumik Das along with two others, namely, Sayan Halder and Sourav Kar from North Land area of Noapara without issuing arrest memos. It is alleged that the said arrest was made without any cause and only to fulfil their ill motive. The petitioner was informed over phone by one Dipak Debnath of Noapara Police Station on 18th May, 2016 at about 1:30 pm that Saumik Das had been arrested and he is in police custody but reason of such arrest has not been informed by the police authority at that material point of time. The petitioner was informed over phone by one Dipak Debnath of Noapara Police Station on 18th May, 2016 at about 1:30 pm that Saumik Das had been arrested and he is in police custody but reason of such arrest has not been informed by the police authority at that material point of time. After receiving such information, the petitioner immediately visited Noapara Police Station and demanded arrest memo so that the reason behind the arrest became known to the petitioner but her utter surprise the police personnel, on duty, did not permit the petitioner to meet her son and also refused to issue arrest memo. The petitioner was asked to meet her son at about 6.30 pm on the same day at police station. But, thereafter, at about 3.40 pm on the same day i.e. 18th May, 2016, the petitioner was called from Noapara Police Station and informed that the petitioner’s son had been admitted to Bhatpara State General Hospital. She rushed to the Bhatpara State General Hospital and when she reached there it was informed at the hospital that her son has expired. Nobody disclosed her about the reason of death of her son. 7a. In view of such situation, the petitioner herein made written complaints as well as written representations before different authorities to know the actual cause of death of her son and for registration of an FIR against the police personnel who were responsible for such death but no fruitful result comes out. Police officials neither lodged an FIR nor caused investigation of the case. She is still in dark. Though the officer of the Noapara Police station was bound by the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence registered FIR and then proceed further. Plethora of verdicts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court to lodge FIR immediately, no action is taken in the matter from any angles even making several written complaints/representations before the superior authorities and others. Hence, the revisional application has been filed before this Court for necessary direction. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Sabir Ahmed, appointed by legal service authority to represent the petitioner along with others submitted that the learned Magistrate even did not consider the nature of offence alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the revisional application has been filed before this Court for necessary direction. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Sabir Ahmed, appointed by legal service authority to represent the petitioner along with others submitted that the learned Magistrate even did not consider the nature of offence alleged by the petitioner. She had filed the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC with an allegation for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC but the learned Magistrate whimsically and mechanically rejected her prayer and erroneously recorded the reasons for rejection though the deceased died while in police custody. No FIR lodged though the allegation of the petitioner was/is genuine since the circumstances disclose for reason of death is suspicion, which need to be thoroughly investigation. 8a. It is further submitted that it is settled principle of law that whenever an allegation made by oral or a written complaint with regard to the cognizable offence, the police authorities must have treated the complaint as an FIR and immediately caused investigation to find out the truth but in spite of written complaint made by the petitioner being the mother of the deceased, no step was taken by the Police of Noapara Police Station. Several representations/written complaints were made to the different authorities like Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Member of Legislative Assembly, Commissioner of Police and Police Authority of Noapara Police Station but she did not get justice from any corner. 8b. It is the contention of the police authority that he consumed Acid while in custody of the police. A departmental enquiry has been initiated against the police personnel but no case has been initiated with regard to the allegation made by the petitioner though her son died. The actual reason of his death is still in dark. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that his son was murdered for their ill motive in the police custody by grave torture. 8c. It is admitted fact that some of the police personnel were awarded punishment in the departmental proceeding for their negligence, which caused the death of the victim but no FIR has been lodged by the police authority to cause investigation and find out the real culprits. 8c. It is admitted fact that some of the police personnel were awarded punishment in the departmental proceeding for their negligence, which caused the death of the victim but no FIR has been lodged by the police authority to cause investigation and find out the real culprits. Accordingly, the police authority has violated the constitutional rights granted under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and criminal law of Justice as such a necessary direction is required to be passed to unearth the truth. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: 9. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State submitted before this Court that the detailed report with regards to the death of Saumik Das has been brought to this Court by filing a report. 10. The above petition relates to the allegation of Smt. Putul Das, resident of Ichhapur, Bapuji Nagar, P.S. Noapara that her son, Saumik Das was subjected to custodial violence and he had subsequently died. At the outset, it may be mentioned that there were 4 CCTV Cameras installed at Noapara P.S., covering the main entrance to the Police Station Gate (CH-1), the sentry post (CH-2), the duty officer’s room (CH-3) and the Prisoner Lock-up (CH-4), location of those cameras may be seen in the enclosed Map marked Annexure-1. All the 4 cameras were functional on the day of the incident and captured the entire sequence of events. Accused Saumik Das was being brought to the Police Station after arrest. He was also escorted out for the purpose of admitting him to the hospital. 10a. It is seen from the report that 1) Saumik Das, 2) Sourav Kar, son of Shri Santanu Kar of 20 No. Railway Gate, Ichhapur, Maya Pally, P.S. Noapara P.S. and 3) Sayan Halder, son of Sashi Halder of Ichhapur Kalitala, P.S. Noapara were arrested by a police team led by SI Tarun Chakraborty and comprising C/896 Manik Ghosh and C/237, Rangam Biswas of Noapara P.S. u/s 34-V-61 Police Act from East Land Area under the jurisdiction of Noapara P.S., while the accused persons were in the process of consuming ganja. This relates to GDE No. 1156 made at 14.20 hrs. on 18.05.2016 (Annexure-2). From the CCTV Footage, it is seen that the accused were actually brought to the Police Station at about 12.30 hrs. This relates to GDE No. 1156 made at 14.20 hrs. on 18.05.2016 (Annexure-2). From the CCTV Footage, it is seen that the accused were actually brought to the Police Station at about 12.30 hrs. (As requested by O/C Noapara PS, due to some error in the CCTV date/time settings, all PM times are seen as equivalent AM times in the footage and the required conversion has been made for the purpose of this report). CH-1, CH-2 and CH-3 all show the 3 accused persons being brought to the Police Station in healthy condition with no apparent sign of injury. CH-3 shows the frisking of the 3 accused persons. 10b. During examination of Sourav Kar and Sayan Halder, they corroborated that they were smoking ganja which had been supplied by the deceased, Saumik Das. They denied that there had been any scuffle or physical assault at the time of arrest. 10c. Subsequently, the 3 accused persons were made to sit just behind the duty officer. This area is not covered by CCTV, but any person approaching this area or leaving it can be seen by CH-3. The duty officer at that relevant time was Cadet SI Somnath Mondal. At about 13.18 hrs a person identified as Shri Dipak Debnath, a Law Clerk of Barrackpore Court approached the duty officer. Subsequently, he was joined by two other male persons. It could be learnt from the police personnel as well as Sourav Kar and Sayan Halder that Dipak Debnath had come to arrange bail for them. At about 13.19 hrs. there was a change of duty officer and Cadet SI Golam Murtaja Ali took up the post. At about 14:55:07 hrs Civic Police Volunteer Ishtiaq Ahmed S/o Muktar Ahmed is seen to be collecting the lock-up key from the sentry and opening the gate. Thereafter, first Sourav Kar returned and Sayan Halder entered the lockup for the same purpose. He returned at 14:57:22 hrs and, thereafter, Saumik Das is seen entering the toilet empty handed. At 15:00:48 hrs Ishtiaq Ahmed was asked by the duty officer to check the toilet as Saumik Das had not yet emerged after lapse of more than 3 minutes. Ishtiaq Ahmed walked up and as reported by him, the deceased said that he was still relieving himself. At 15:02:41 hrs Saumik Das is seen coming out with his mouth covered by his left hand. Ishtiaq Ahmed walked up and as reported by him, the deceased said that he was still relieving himself. At 15:02:41 hrs Saumik Das is seen coming out with his mouth covered by his left hand. At this stage none of the 3 arrested persons were visible to the CCTV Camera, but the body language and visual interactions of the police personnel in front of the camera indicates that they were sitting right behind the duty officer. At 15:03:44 hrs., ASI Tapas Ranjan Das looked at Saumik Das and pointed out something to both the duty officer and Ishtiaq Ahmed. During examination, ASI Tapas Ranjan Das stated that he noticed froth coming out from the mouth of the deceased. After this, Saumik Das receives the attention of both the duty officers and Ishtiaq Ahmed and at 15:04:11 hrs he is seen being escorted out by his hand with a staggering gate by Ishtiaq Ahmed. As reported by ASI Tapas Ranjan Das, who rushed to admit him to the Bhatpara S.G. Hospital, Saumik Das died within 5 to 6 minutes of leaving the P.S. 10d. The scrutiny of CH-4 camera installed inside the lockup shows that the actual toilet area attached to the lock up is not under CCTV coverage. It shows both Sourav Kar and Sayan Halder entering the toilet area and exiting it in normal manner. However, at 14:47:41 hrs Saumik Das is seen filling up a bucket of water from lockup water source and entering the toilet. His demeanour is suspicious and he keeps glancing at the lock-up door. He is also seen clutching something in his right hand. At 15:02:40 hrs, he is seen emerging from the toilet, holding his mouth. 10e. Inquest was conducted on the deceased vide UD Case No. 58/16 dated 19.05.2016 of Jagaddal P.S. (Annexure-III). Examination of the inquest report and post mortem report indicates that death was due to ingestion of some corrosive substance. No other significant injury could be detected. 10f. During inquiry of the UD Case, an empty bottle of the carbolic acid was seized from the toilet. The viscera of the deceased have been sent to FSL, Kolkata for chemical examination. 10g. No other significant injury could be detected. 10f. During inquiry of the UD Case, an empty bottle of the carbolic acid was seized from the toilet. The viscera of the deceased have been sent to FSL, Kolkata for chemical examination. 10g. It is the contention of police authority that from the available evidence, particularly the statements of co-accused as well as from CCTV footages, its prima facie appears that the deceased consumed some acidic substance while in police custody at Noapara P.S. on 18.05.2016 hrs, which caused his death. No police person is seen approaching or assaulting the deceased during his custody and the contention of the petitioner does not appear to be correct, prima facie. However, final finding as to the cause of death of Saumik Das can only be arrived at if it is proved that the CCTV footage was not tampered with, for which the reply of Director, FSL, Kolkata is awaited. 10h. Further, O/C Noapara PS had taken necessary action to inform all concerned about the “custodial death” and a judicial enquiry was conducted by Ld. JM (1st Class), 2nd Court, North 24- Parganas, Barasat into the matter. Prayer has been submitted to Ld. JM for providing his enquiry report. 10i. Be that as it may, it is admitted facts that there were certain lapses in police procedure such as: (1) the accused being kept behind the duty officer instead of in the lock-up even after being brought to the police station after their arrest, (2) not following of proper procedure in the escorting of the accused to the toilet and (3) the failure of the police in preventing him from being in possession of the purported bottle of carbolic acid which he might have consumed with fatal results, even though he had been frisked by the police personnel on duty. 10j. Administrative action is being taken in this matter and the concerned police officers, namely, SI Tarun Chakraborty, the arresting officer of the deceased and LC/704 Ratna Adhikary (Sentry duty at the time of the incident) were closed to the Line O.R. of Barrackpore Police Commissionerate and departmental proceedings were started to ascertain as to whether there was any gross negligence on their part vide Barrackpore Police Commissionerate Proceeding No. 19/16 and 20/16 dated 20.05.2016. A separate departmental proceeding vide Barrackpore Police Commissionerate Proceeding No. 26/16 dated 23.07.2016 was also started against the Inspr. A separate departmental proceeding vide Barrackpore Police Commissionerate Proceeding No. 26/16 dated 23.07.2016 was also started against the Inspr. Subhabrata Ghosh, Officer-in-Charge of Noapara P.S. for overall negligence. 10k. However, the police authority denied with regards to the allegation of the petitioner that she visited Noapara P.S. and was prevented her from meeting her son, it is factually not correct and the petitioner did not visit Noapara P.S. on the said date as such entire case based on assumption that the police personnel tortured while in custody and finally succumbed though the inquest report and P.M. report clarifies the case of suicide. DISCUSSIONS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION BY THIS COURT: 11. Having heard rival submissions and contentions of the parties and on perusal of the report submitted by the State, it is very clear that the deceased was arrested and brought to the police station. It is admitted facts that the deceased Saumik Das died while in custody. The allegation levelled by the Petitioner is serious one. She was not permitted to meet with her son after arrest. Police had neither supplied arrest memo to the petitioner nor anybody else. No reason assigned to the petitioner for reason of arrest. She had made written complaints before the Police Station and higher authorities of police and others as well but no FIR lodged though the alleged offence is cognizable. What prevented the police authorities to lodge complaint and cause investigation to bring actual truth? Petitioner is after all a mother, who has right to know the reason of death of her son. 12. Other suspicious circumstances also reveal from the report about the time of CCTV cameras, how acid bottles found in the toilet. The report shows death was due to consumption of carbolic acid. He went to the toilet of police lock up and consumed Carbolic Acid. What prompted him to consume acid? No report found from anywhere that he was consuming Ganja prior to his arrest. Post Mortem report indicates the death was due to the ingestion of some corrosive substances as noted above anti-mortem in nature though the allegation of the petitioner is serious that he was tortured by the police personnel at the police station and murdered him. No viscera report collected till date to know actual cause of death. 13. Post Mortem report indicates the death was due to the ingestion of some corrosive substances as noted above anti-mortem in nature though the allegation of the petitioner is serious that he was tortured by the police personnel at the police station and murdered him. No viscera report collected till date to know actual cause of death. 13. The deceased was arrested by the police without issuing arrest memo to the family members and further refused to issue arrest memo on demand. It is also noted in the post mortem report that the chemical of the corrosive substances may be ascertained after chemical examination report is available. It further appears from the report that two separate departmental proceedings were started to ascertain the negligence on the part of the Police personnel/officers vide Barrackpore Police Commissionerate being proceeding nos. 19/2016 and 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016 and departmental proceeding vide Barrackpore Police Commissionerate proceeding no. 26/2016 dated 23.07.2016 was also started against Inspector Subhabrata Ghosh, Officer-in-Charge of Noapara PS for overall negligence. It is sorry state of affairs that how Corrosive substance and acid available in the toilet of the police lock up and how he had consumed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed directions in Laxmi Vs. Union of India, (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 427 and further laid down guidelines therein as under: “7. In our opinion, all the States and Union Territories which have not yet framed rules will do well to make rules to regulate sale of acid and other corrosive substances in line with the Model Rules framed by the Central Government. The States, which have framed rules but these rules are not as stringent as the Model Rules framed by the Central Government will make necessary amendments in their rules to bring them in line with the Model Rules. The Chief Secretaries of the respective States and the Administrators of the Union Territories shall ensure compliance with the above expeditiously and in no case later than three months from the receipt of the draft Model Rules from the Central Government. 8. The Centre and States/Union Territories shall work towards making the offences under the Poisons Act, 1919 cognizable and non-bailable. 9. 8. The Centre and States/Union Territories shall work towards making the offences under the Poisons Act, 1919 cognizable and non-bailable. 9. In the States/Union Territories, where rules to regulate sale of acid and other corrosive substances are not operational, until such rules are framed and made operational, the Chief Secretaries of the States concerned/Administrators of the Union Territories shall ensure the compliance with the following directions with immediate effect: 9.1. Over the counter, sale of acid is completely prohibited unless the seller maintains a log/register recording the sale of acid which will contain the details of the person(s) to whom acid(s) is/are sold and the quantity sold. The log/register shall contain the address of the person to whom it is sold. 9.2. All sellers shall sell acid only after the buyer has shown: (a) a photo ID issued by the Government which also has the address of the person; (b) specifies the reason/purpose for procuring acid. 9.3. All stocks of acid must be declared by the seller with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) concerned within 15 days. 9.4. No acid shall be sold to any person who is below 18 years of age. 9.5. In case of undeclared stock of acid, it will be open to the SDM concerned to confiscate the stock and suitably impose a fine on such seller up to Rs. 50,000. 9.6. The SDM concerned may impose fine up to Rs. 50,000 on any person who commits breach of any of the above directions. 10. Educational institutions, research laboratories, hospitals, government departments and the departments of public sector undertakings, who are required to keep and store acid, shall follow the following guidelines: 10.1. A register of usage of acid shall be maintained and the same shall be filed with the SDM concerned. 10.2. A person shall be made accountable for possession and safe keeping of acid in their premises. 10.3. The acid shall be stored under the supervision of this person and there shall be compulsory checking of the students/personnel leaving the laboratories/place of storage where acid is used. 11. The SDM concerned shall be vested with the responsibility of taking appropriate action for the breach/default/violation of the above directions.” 14. Considering the circumstances of death of Saumik Das in police custody is aggravated serious concern. In such a case, Police authority specially, higher officer must be careful while dealing with such types of cases. 11. The SDM concerned shall be vested with the responsibility of taking appropriate action for the breach/default/violation of the above directions.” 14. Considering the circumstances of death of Saumik Das in police custody is aggravated serious concern. In such a case, Police authority specially, higher officer must be careful while dealing with such types of cases. But in the instant case, neither higher authority of police department nor other authorities consider the case of the petitioner. Even, the Learned Magistrate took casual and mechanical approach while considering an application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Such casual approach must be always deprecated. It is clear from Sub-Section (1) of Section 154 that when the officer in-charge of the police station receives information relating to commission of a cognizable offence given in writing or reduced to writing is bound to register the FIR, the person aggrieved can make a complaint in writing to the Superior Officer of police concerned, Petitioner informed the Superintendent of Police about the cognizable offence but no availed result. The SP, if satisfied that the information discloses the commission of cognizable offence, shall either investigate himself or direct the investigation to be done by an officer subordinate to him. In this case, most probably the accused persons would have the officer of the Noapara police station as such FIR has not been registered. The petitioner has contended that she has made complaint before the authorities like the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, West Bengal vide letter dated 17.06.2016. She has also made a written representation dated 04.06.2016 to the local Member of the Legislative Assembly informing the entire facts but even making such representation / written complaint, no action or investigation has been initiated with regards to the allegation of murder of her son, namely, Saumik Das. 15. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court has given direction to lodge FIR immediately on getting information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the officer-in charge is bound to register the crime and cause enquiry or investigation. 15. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court has given direction to lodge FIR immediately on getting information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the officer-in charge is bound to register the crime and cause enquiry or investigation. He cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information given by the informant is reliable or genuine before registering the case, the opposite party, State only did not register the FIR but attempt to justify the wrong and unsustainable stand taken by them in spite of the fact that the mother of the deceased was given written complaint before the Noapara Police station disclosing cognizable offence. 16. The scheme of Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that though the police officer-in-charge of the police station is bound to register the case on receipt of information as to commission of cognizable offence under Section 154 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code clothes him with the discretion to investigate the case. Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157 (1) stipulates that 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. But sub-section (2) of the Section 157 further stipulates that if the officer -in-Charge of the police station finds that there is no sufficient ground for entering on any investigation, he is bound to state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of Sub-section (1) of Section 157 and forthwith notify to the informant the fact that he will not investigate the case. Therefore, the officer-in-charge, Noapara Police Station in this case without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Sections 154 and 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code has taken up a very strange position not to register the case and even the Judicial Magistrate also not taken any such considerations rather taken casual and mechanical approach, which cannot be justified but should be deprecated. 17. Article 22 of the Constitution of India provides for four basic rights to the arrested persons. An individual has to be informed of the grounds of arrest, should be made available with legal counsel and should be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. 17. Article 22 of the Constitution of India provides for four basic rights to the arrested persons. An individual has to be informed of the grounds of arrest, should be made available with legal counsel and should be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. It also provides for preventive detention to protect the arrested persons against ill-treatment in prisons. Article 20 protects the prisoners against self-incrimination. Article 21, which seeks to ensure a dignified life for the citizens, includes in its ambit the right against torture. 18. “Torture is wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralysing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.” These words of Adriana P. Bartow were used by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. reported 1997(1) SCC 416 , for highlighting the detriment. Emphasis supplied. 19. Torture can cause to one's mind and body. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer called custodial torture a vice worse than terrorism, for the reason that it is State sanctioned, which makes it despicable and a blot on the highly regarded principle of rule of law in our country. Subjection to torture strikes the very basic right to life and dignity of an individual. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), 2002 set up by the Law Ministry specifically recommended for “prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as one of the additions to the fundamental rights chapter as Article 21(2) on the basis of the dicta laid down in various Supreme Court judgments in recognition of torture in our constitutional jurisprudence. The problem of custodial torture in India has a colonial origin, when people were locked up in torture chambers even for petty offences by the imperial masters and inhuman treatment meted out to them. Like many archaic practices of the colonial era, the law enforcement system in our country has probably engrained and adopted this practice as an inevitable part of investigation. Like many archaic practices of the colonial era, the law enforcement system in our country has probably engrained and adopted this practice as an inevitable part of investigation. A person can be tortured in custody for numerous reasons — for admittance of crime, for extortion of a confession, for the imputation of evidence. The cruelty hits it abyss when this is done for the refusal to pay bribes, on account of personal grudges, and sometimes, merely for the show of power and authority and buttressing one's ego. Ironically, the people involved in this brutal manhandling are the ones on whose shoulders rest the responsibility of the protection of the citizens against the evil forces and criminal elements of society. Such abhorrent acts when committed by the police puts a big question mark on the credibility of justice dispensation system and what is hit the hardest is the trust of the people in the policing system — which forms the bulwark of peace and harmony in a country. Emphasis supplied. 20. In Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P., the Court highlighted that torture “is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands”. The Select Committee draft of 2010 was prepared to make the Prevention of Torture Bill more compliant with the Uncat. Article 1 of Uncat defines torture as when a “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” 21. A five-judge Bench in Lalita Kumari v Govt. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” 21. A five-judge Bench in Lalita Kumari v Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524; (2014) 2 SCC 1 has tried to set at rest the legal position regarding lodging of FIR as Under: i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. 22. In the light of above discussion and as situation demand, the prayer of the petitioner is required to be allowed. Superintendent of Police, North 24-Parganas is directed to register the Complaint made under Section 156(3) of the CrPC as an FIR and cause thorough investigation by appointing an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police. The DGP, West Bengal is directed to take appropriate action in order to avoid such contingencies in future. 23. Accordingly, CRR 2224 of 2016 is, thus, allowed. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of. 24. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the learned Court below for information. 25. Case Diary, if any, is to be returned to the learned counsels for the State. 26. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 27. Parties shall act on the server copies of this order uploaded on the website of this Court. 28. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all formalities.