T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. The proceeding is filed under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Initially, the proceeding was registered as Criminal Writ Petition No.595/2005. Due to the order made by this Court, the proceeding was then made under the provision of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was given Criminal Application No. 3325/2005.

2. The proceeding is filed for the main relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.I-231 of 2005 registered in Topkhana Police Station Ahmednagar. After filing of the proceeding, charge sheet came to be filed in this crime and to the said case number is given as R.T.C. No. 169/2006 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. Charge sheet is filed for offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

3. The proceeding was filed on 30-11-2005 in this Court though initially it was filed for quashing of F.I.R.. The F.I.R. was registered on 2-10-2005. On 20-12-2005 notice was given to the learned A.P.P. for the State and the notice was waived by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. On the same day this Court made interim order for granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) of the original proceeding. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) was as follows :

"(D) Pending the admission, hearing and disposal of the present writ petition, stay further proceedings on the basis of the F.I.R. being Crime No.I-231/2005 registered at Topkhana police station, Ahmednagar."

4. Even when interim relief of aforesaid nature was granted by this Court on 20-12-2005 police filed charge sheet on 31-3-2006. After that application for amendment of the proceeding was filed and prayer was made for permission to add other police officers as party respondents. This application was allowed by this Court on 24-10-2007. Subsequent developments including the development of filing of charge-sheet came to be mentioned in paragraph 7 of the proceeding which is a prayer clause and in the prayer clause new payers were made like relief of quashing of the charge sheet and also relief of compensation of Rs. fifty lakh from the respondents. The respondents are State Government, concerned police station, original informant, the police officer who filed charge sheet and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the police officers who were involved in actual investigation.

5. On merits, on 30-9-2010 this Court granted the relief of quashing of the criminal case itself. In the same order this Court observed that the matter cannot end there and other things need to be inquired into due to the subsequent developments and also the amendment made in the proceeding. This Court has mentioned three things which need to be decided, in the order made on 30-9-2010 and they are as under :-

"(I) Whether by filing the charge sheet against the applicant, the police had committed contempt of Court ?

(II) who is responsible for filing of the charge sheet ?

(III) If the complaint against the applicant was malicious and he was wrongfully restrained due to his arrest, whether he is entitled to any compensation from the respondents ?"

The order dated 30-9-2010 made by this Court is not challenged by the respondents. Though respondent Nos.4 to 6 were added by making amendment in the proceeding in the year 2007, they did not file reply till the date of the order i.e. 30-9-2010. In this order dated 30-9-2010 this Court directed these respondents to file reply affidavit in view of aforesaid specific points raised for consideration by this Court. The respondents then filed reply affidavit. Though there are specific allegations of misuse of power by respondent No.5, Police Inspector, who effected arrest, learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented this Police Inspector. Respondent No.6, who was Sub Divisional Police Officer ("SDPO") had retired prior to service of notice and so he appointed private counsel. When the present matter was heard, both the police offic