The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's allegations of illegal arrest, detention, and extortion of money were found to be false and vexatious, and the police station had jurisdiction to register the FIR.

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. By this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction that an investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation or CID be appointed to properly investigate the C.R. No.I-22/2012 registered with Navghar Police Station, Bhayander, District Thane. It is also prayed that such investigating agency be directed to enquire into the circumstances leading to the registration of FIR by Navghar Police Station, Bhayander and also about the illegal arrest/detention of the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for direction to the Director General of Police / Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural) to hold departmental enquiry against Respondent Nos.4 & 5 and other police personnel responsible for registration of C.R. No.I-22/2012 by the Navghar Police Station, Bhayander, Thane and also for effecting illegal arrest of the petitioner and extorting / misappropriating amount of `11,25,000/-from the petitioner on 9.2.2012. The petitioner also prays that the said extorted amount of 11,25,000/-which has been misappropriated by respondent Nos.4 & 5 on 9.2.2012 be recovered from them and to be made over to the petitioner. The petitioner also prays that a direction be issued to Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to evolve a mechanism to avoid recurrence of such high handed action of the police personnel. The petitioner also prays for compensation of `20 lacs for his illegal detention in connection with C.R. No.I-22/2012 with Navghar Police Station from 9.2.2012 to 10.4.2012. Lastly, the petitioner prays that after receipt of investigation report from the independent investigating agency, that agency may be directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of accused in the case registered as C.R. No.I-22/2012.

2. Notably, the petitioner has been named as accused in connection with C.R. No.I-22/2012. He has prayed for abovementioned diverse reliefs. However, the principal relief is not for quashing of FIR or chargesheet, even though the chargesheet has already been filed, on 28.3.2012, in the concerned Court naming the petitioner as an accused in the commission of alleged offence alongwith others, on the basis of material collected during the investigation indicating his involvement. Further, during the arguments, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not pressing the relief of deletion of the petitioner's name from the FIR but the petitioner was more concerned with the other reliefs, in particular, of transferring the investigation of the case to independent agency and for enquiring into the allegation of illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner in connection with the alleged offence and more particularly, about the misappropriation and / or extortion of amount of `11,25,000/-from the petitioner by Respondent Nos.4 & 5, who are police officials of Bhayander Police Station where the offence has been registered against the petitioner.

3. As regards the principal relief of transferring the investigation of the criminal case to independent investigating agency, that relief has been worked out during the pendency of this petition. In that, the Department, on its own, because of the complexity of the case, has decided to entrust the further investigation of the case pertaining to municipal octroi evasion to a specialised agency, namely, Economic Offences Wing, Thane. Further, the Department has decided to entrust the investigation to high official not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to obviate any apprehensions about proper investigation. The fact remains that the further investigation of the case has now been transferred to an independent agency – other than the police officials of Bhayander Police Station against whom allegations of malafide and colourable exercise of power has been made by the petitioner. Nevertheless, those allegations will have to be considered in the context of the other reliefs claimed by the petitioner on