( 1 ) THE woeful tale of police torture and wrongful confinement in the Police Station of the petitioner by the Kengerigate Police is the grievance made out in the private complaint filed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that on 9-10-1998 at 1 l a. m. the respondents 3 to 5 came to his house and whisked him to the police Station, he was partially undressed put in lock-up, beaten black and blue with hockey sticks; the respondents 1 and 2 also said to have participated in illegal action against the petitioner. One Dr. Raveedra who has a clinic nearby Kengerigate Police Station was summoned, he found that the condition of the petitioner was very critical, treated the petitioner and advised the respondents to immediately shift him to a hospital for treatment suspecting some grave and dangerous consequences. Smt. Kumuda, Subramani, the brother and the friends of the petitioner Nagaraj and Satyanarayan are said to be witnesses to the ghastly acts committed by the respondents, the wife of the complainant made attempts to lodge the complaint with the Senior Police Officers. On finding the petitioner in hopeless condition, was released from the custody and was admitted in the Victoria Hospital by the family members where he was treated for the fracture, injuries he had sustained. The doctors who have treated the petitioner in the Victoria Hospital are also cited as witnesses in the private complaint.

( 3 ) THE materials placed on record reveals that the matter was complained to the National Human Rights Commission, an enquiry was held into the matter and it was found that the respondents to be guilty of the alleged actions, the compensation was also said to have been ordered to be paid. Besides, it was also recommended to initiate proper legal action against the respondents.

( 4 ) ON filing of the private complaint, the Magistrate on 16-10-1998, referred the case for investigation by Commissioner of Police. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Police conducted the investigation and filed a B report into the matter. The complainant filed a protest memo examined himself and the witnesses, in support of his case. The Magistrate after considering the material placed, passed the impugned order accepting the B report and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed.

( 5 ) THE propriety of the Magistrate in referring the complaint for investigation to Commissioner of Police does not appear to be res integra in view o1" the ruling of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Through S. P. , Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan 2000 (1) Supreme 263 : (AIR 2001 SC 668) it is held thus :"6. If the power of a Magistrate to order investigation by the CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be traced in the above provision, it is not possible to trace such power in any other provision of the Code. What is contained in sub-sec. (3) of S. 156, is the power to order the investigation referred to in sub-sec. (1), because the words "order such an investigation as above mentioned" in sub-sec. (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-section. Thus the power is to order an 'officer-in-charge of a police station' to conduct investigation. 10. This means any other police officer, who is superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of a police station, can exercise the same powers of the officer-in-charge of a police station, and when he so exercises the powers he would do it in his capacity as officer-in-charge of the police station, But when a magistrate orders investigation under Section 156 (3), he can only direct an officer-in-charge of a police station to conduct such investigation and not a superior police officer, though such officer can exercise such powers by virtue of S. 36 of the Code. Nonetheless when such an order is passed, any police officer, superior in rank of such officer, can as well exercise the power to conduct investigation, and all such investigations would then be deemed to be the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document