K.U. Chandiwal, J.

1. Heard finally. On 3rd April, 2013, Rule was issued returnable on 17th June, 2013.

2. The petitioner has prayed to declare that he was illegally detained by respondent nos. 2 to 5 and to direct respondent no.1 to initiate departmental inquiry against respondent nos. 2 to 5 for such illegal detention. He has also urged for a Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rs. five lacs) for his illegal detention, from respondents.

3. On 1.11.2012, after hearing Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record, Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, was directed to conduct inquiry in the subject matter and to file affidavit, answering each paragraph of the petition. On 31st Jan., 2013, Division Bench noticed that inquiry has not been conducted by the Superintendent of Police but, he has secured a report from Sub Divisional Police Officer and filed an affidavit on that basis. Consequently, Special Inspector General of Police, Nashik Range, Nashik, immediate superior officer of the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, was directed to conduct an inquiry himself into the grievances represented in the writ petition, record statements of all concerned, and to furnish report on his affidavit. Accordingly, such inquiry was conducted and report is tendered before this Court.

4. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 have also tendered their affidavit. Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 have tendered additional affidavit on 24.9.2013, tendering apology for events.

5. FACTS PROJECTED IN THE PETITION:

(a) FIR No.224/2012 was registered against the petitioner for offense under Sections 453, 354, 323, 504, 506 of IPC on 18.8.2012. He was arrested by Rahuri Police on 18.8.2012 at about 11 p.m. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on 19.8.2012, at 7 p.m. Police custody remand was refused by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and petitioner was sent to Magisterial custody remand. His bail application was granted. He was released at 7.30 p.m. on 19.8.2012. In the Court premises itself, after such release, the petitioner was again arrested by respondent nos. 4 and 5 and he was taken to the Police Station. Imploration by relatives of the petitioner as to reasons for re-arrest did not yield any result. Respondent no.2 abused in filthy language at the Police Station. He directed respondent nos. 4 and 5 to book the petitioner in lock up. On 20th August, 2012, he petitioner was produced before respondent no.3, and without making any inquiry, he acted under Section 122 of Cr.P.C. and petitioner was sent to the jail at Rahuri.

(b) At the request of petitioner's relatives, Advocate Shri Pawar applied to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri, requesting the Police to produce the petitioner and the learned Judge asked the Court Constable as to where was the petitioner. At such time, it was informed by respondent no.5 that petitioner has already been released on 19.8.2012. Later, respondent no.5 informed, the petitioner has been arrested in connection with another crime without furnishing details of such crime even to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was pleased to reject application as there was no remand before him. Respondent no.5 accordingly rushed to the Police Station intimating respondent no.2 about the court proceedings initiated on behalf of the petitioner. At such time, respondent no.2 asked relatives of the petitioner to seek necessary orders from respondent no.3 for releasing the petitioner. Consequently, respondent no.3 was moved and a release order was passed.

(c) It revealed that the petitioner has been arrested under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. but the arrest register shows that he was arrested under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. The release order referred offense under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. This is disclosed even in the remand report furnished to the Court. If the petitioner was arrested under Section 107 o