JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved against deliberate arbitrary act of police atrocities inflicted upon him by his illegal detention by the police attached to Bhaktinagar P.S on the basis of the second FIR over the selfsame facts on the basis of which a criminal case is already pending before the court of the learned Magistrate and secondly subsequent detention in a bailable offence under Section 385 of the IPC.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Shekhar Sharma, respondent No. 8 herein lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Bhaktinagar P.S on or about 11th November, 2014 on the basis of which Bhaktinagar P.S Case No. 1544 of 2014 dated 11the November, 2014 under Sections 420/468/471/384/447/34 of the IPC was registered. The said case gave rise to GR Case No. 5397 of 2014 and presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. In the said case, the petitioner is released on bail. On completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons on 25th June, 2016 before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is submitted by the petitioner that the allegation made against him in the said complaint is purely civil in nature and over the selfsame dispute the respondent No. 8 instituted Title Suit No. 19 of 2015 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalpaiguri and the said suit also pending.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 4th May, 2022 at about 11.30 am one police personnel asked the petitioner to meet the Inspector-in-Charge of Bhaktinagar P.S, the respondent No. 5. The petitioner conducted the Inspector-in-Charge of Bhaktinagar P.S over telephone and the Inspector-in-Charge directed him to come at once to the P.S then he was taken to the P.S by a police van at about 11.30 am. When he reached Bhaktinagar P.S, the petitioner was confined in the police station lockup without assigning any reason. The authorized representative and Advocate of the petitioner rushed to the police station by about 4 pm on 4th May, 2022 and wanted to know the reason as to why the petitioner was unauthorisedly detained by the police. Subsequently, on 5th May, 2022, the learned Advocate for the petitioner came to know that the petitioner has been arrested in connection with Bhaktinagar P.S Case No. 450 of 2022 dated 4th May, 2022 under Sections 447/506/420/465/467/468/471/188/120B of the IPC registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by the respondent No. 8.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the written complaint filed by the respondent No. 8 on 4th May, 2022 is replication of the previous written complaint submitted by selfsame respondent No. 8 in the year 2014 on the basis of which Bhaktinagar P.S Case No. 1544 of 2014 dated 11th November, 2014 is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. In paragraph 8(a) of the writ petition the petitioner has stated in tabular form the contents of the two complaints filed by respondent No. 8 and it is not in dispute that the complaint filed in the year 2014 and on 4th May, 2022 are absolutely same and identical containing same state of facts.

5. Mr. Amales Ray, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that Rule 256 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 and Court Practice (P.R.B) imposes an obligation upon the Investigating Officer to consult registers which are likely to assist him in his investigation, particularly the Village Crime Note Book, before proceeding to investigate. Rule 257 states that an Officer-in-Charge of a police station may refrain from investigating a case in which there appears to be insufficient ground for investigation. Rule 260 mandates the Investigating Officer not to harass unnecessarily any members of the public in the name of investigation. Rule 263 read with Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates maintenance of case diary by the Investigating Officer.

6. Referring to th