By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for State-respondents.

Petitioner, before this Court seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for illegal detention of the petitioner in jail between 4th April, 2006 to 17th April, 2006 and further for a mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) to register, investigate and prosecute the persons found guilty in the said case.

2. Facts in short leading to the present writ petition are as follows:

Petitioner before this Court, who was in the employment of Deity Thakur Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Virajman Bankey Bihari Ji Temple situate in Biharipura, Vrindavan, District Mathura, was arrested by the Police at Vrindavan with reference to the First Information Report lodged under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered as Case Crime No. 120 of 2006, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. Petitioner was named as the accused in the First Information Report.

3. It appears that subsequently, the informant/complainant made a statement before the Investigating Officer that the written complaint does not bear his signatures and it was not lodged by him. On the aforesaid, the Investigating Officer on 16th April, 2006 submitted a report under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura passed an order dated 17th April, 2006 releasing the petitioner on bail with a condition that he may furnish surety/personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-. What has happened to the proceedings thereafter is not known. However, it is admitted on record that the petitioner has been set free under order dated 17th April, 2006.

4. By means of the present writ petition it has been contended that since the Police has submitted report under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code after recording that the complainant himself has denied the making of the complaint, the arrest of the petitioner is rendered illegal, therefore, he is entitled for compensation. The petitioner has also prayed that the CBI be directed to register and investigate the matter.

For the purpose, following judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court have been relied upon by the petitioner:

(1) Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others; 1994 Cri LJ 1981,

(2) Nine judges judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.; 2005 Cri LJ 755,

(3) Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others; 2006 Cri LJ 1242

(4) Shiva Nath Prasad v. State of West Bengal and others With Dr. V. Gauri Shanker v. State of West Bengal and others; 2006 Cri LJ 1258.

The first two judgments are relied for spelling out the procedure required to be followed by the Police before arresting a person and the subsequent judgments are relied upon for the proposition that because of wrongful detention in jail, the person concerned becomes entitled for compensation and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ample power to issue such orders for compensation.

5. This Court may only record that arrest of the petitioner by the Police was as a consequence to the lodging of the First Information Report. Such power of arrest flows from Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Merely because at a later point of time, the complainant has made a statement that such complaint was not made by him and the Police has submitted report under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court cannot record a finding without any further enquiry that the arrest of the petitioner was for mala fide reasons or that the Police has not acted fairly in discharge of its duties, as contemplated under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The power of the High Court to grant compensation in case of wrongful detention in jail in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been well-settled by the Apex Court but at the same time, t