V.D. Gyani, J. -- 1. The petitioner, an old man, past sixty, whose sons and son-in-law were allegedly carried away by Mhow police on the night of 15th Aug. 92, and later shown to have been arrested on 18.8.92, in connection with an offence u/s 457 IPC registered at the Police Station, had moved the Court of AC.J.M. for their release but in vain. It was on 19th that he was asked by a senior police officer to see his son Allis in the Civil Hospital at Mhow. The petitioner rushed to the hospital, he was taken to the mortuary by doctor incharge, only to find him lying dead with several injuries on his body. A call for 'Mhow Band' was given by public, accordingly Mhow was kept 'Band'.

2. The petitioner petitioned and complained to higher authorities but to no avail. He has now approached this Court with the present petition praying for the following orders:

i) Registration of offence u/s 302 & 387 IPC and investigate same in accordance with law.

ii) To proceed against the accused as also the abettors of the crime.

iii) Award of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner.

3. By this petition u/A 226 of the Constitution, full of shocking facts and disturbing features, Shri Khan Sr. Advocate, has attempted and embarked on a mission to fright injustice and to help a poor under privilege, the petitioner, whose son, as alleged has been the victim of custodial violence resulting in death, has tried to put both, his fervor and felicity coupled with scholarship into the case, but as it invariably happens the failed idealist, discovers to his chagrin that even the noblest of efforts, falls short, in face of constrains, the staggering case lead tremendous time pressure, limited resources, and the bureaucratic hurdles, at times, put forth, but it must be said to his credit, that he has tried to overcome all these with utmost purveyance and a sense of commitment.

4. So far as the first two reliefs are concerned, in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 SC 604) there can be no legal hitch or hesitation in granting the same. We accordingly grant the same. The Supreme Court has held as follows:

"31. Be it noted that in section 154 (1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression "information" without qualifying the same as in section 41 (1) (a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and "credible information" are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word "information" in section 154 (1) unlike in section 41 (1) (a) & (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or' credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'Credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word" information" without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act XXV of 1861) passed by the Legislative counsel of India read that 'every complaint or information' preferred to an officer in incharge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was subsequently modified by section 112 of the Code of 1872, (Act X of 1872) which thereafter read that 'every complaint' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced into writing. The word 'complaint' which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word 'information' was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1955 which word is now used in the sections 154, 155, 157 and 190 (c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act II of 1974). An overall reading of first the Codes