..
1.	An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the ARREST. These protections from power MUST be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) and enforced strictly.   

  
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the ARRESTed person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.	.

( Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others *1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 / (1994) 4SCC 260 AIR 1994 SC 1349  )
                  .. every third day, the detainee should be medically examined and such medical reports should be 	entered in the Station House Diary;
.. The Officer in charge of the concerned POLICE Station should provide paper and pen to the detainee if so demanded for writing complaint and the Officer in charge of the concerned POLICE Station should open the complaint is found in the complaint box, the officer in charge of the POLICE Station should' produce such complaining detainee to the Magistrate immediately along with his complaint and the concerned Magistrate would pass appropriate orders in the light of the complaint made for medical examination, treatment, aid or assistance, as the 	case may warrant;

(vii)	no female person shall be detained or Arrested without the PRESENCE of lady constable and in no case, after sun-set and before sun-rise;   
(Christian Community Welfare Council of India and another vs 
Government of Maharastra & another* 1995 Cr.L.J. 4223 Bombay)) 

          The Supreme Court on handcuffing of prisoners issued the following 	directions: 
We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or undertrial - while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. The POLICE and the jail authorities, on their own shall have NO AUTHORITY to direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back… Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any rank of POLICE in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable under the CONTEMPT of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. 
(In re: M.P. Dwivedi and others* *1996 Cr.L.J. 1670  )                            
…The Arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation…. render him liable to be punished for CONTEMPT of court and the proceedings for CONTEMPT of court may be instituted in any, High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. "The courts have the obligation to satisfy the 
social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.  A court of law cannot 
close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities.  Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim	civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family.
 (D.K. Basu vs State of W.B.*  *(1997) 1 SCC 426)

, a poor lady was taken by railway  employee to a railway guest house (Yatri Niwas) and was raped.  Holding the Union of India vicariously liable, this Court held that for an act of Railway Authorities, a direction can be issued to the authorities to pay compensation to the victim and, accordingly, compensation was awarded.( Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2002) SCC 465)
the Petroleum Minister made allotment of petrol pumps arbitrarily in favour of his relatives, friends and 'kiths and kins'.  When the matter 
came up before this Court, not only the allotment was cancelled, but the Court directed the Minister to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as exemplary damages to public exchequer and also Rs. 50,000/- as costs. (Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530), 
No doubt a Review Petition was filed against the above decision in and the order passed earlier was recalled and direction for payment of Rs.50 lakhs was set aside. Common Cause, a Registered Society vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 593,


            … The detention in POLICE custody is generally disfavoured by law. .. There cannot be any detention in the POLICE custody after the expiry of first fifteen days even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed by him in the same transaction come to light at a later stage.( C.B.I.   vs Anupam J. Kulkarni**(1992) 3SCC 141 ) 
       ..Magistrate can intervene only when POLICE officer decides not to investigate. .. The meaning of the expression II reason to suspect" has to be governed and dictated by the facts and, circumstances of each case and at that stage the question of adequate proof of facts alleged in the first information report does not arise. (State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajan Lal and Others. *(1992) Supp. (1)SCC 335)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973—Section 482—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21— trial discussed—COGNIZANCE taken in 1977 but the case prolonged due to the adjournments sought by the accused and their various petitions—Besides this a civil suit was filed on the same disputed matter—Held, The accused cannot be allowed the benefit of their actions which caused DELAY and civil suit filed after taking COGNIZANCE as an alternative remedy will not affect the criminal pending case.

DELAY in the trial of this case has been mainly occasioned and caused at the instance of the petitioners and the complainant- Bank or prosecution has not been guilty for any dilatory tactics or latches. Therefore, it is not a fit case, wherein by invoking inherent powers of this Court, the proceedings should be quashed. COGNIZANCE against the petitioners for offences u/ss. 420 & 120-B IPC had already been taken by the learned trial Magistrate by his order dated 6.8.1978. In Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370, it has been held that the existence of alternate civil remedy would not bar the criminal jurisdiction.
Nemichand & Maishrilal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. [Raj.] 330.

          .. Whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a 'complaint' the POLICE has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply with the requirements, of the POLICE Rules… Indeed, even if a Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a: case, still in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the POLICE to investigate into a cognizable 'case' and the Rules framed under the POLICE Act. 1861 it the POLICE is duty bound, to formally REGISTER a case and then investigate into the same.
(Madhu Bala vs Suresh Kumar & Others.  *1997 Cr.L.J. 3757 ) 

.. If the officer in charge of POLICE station is of opinion and submits a   final report to the effect that no case is made out to send up the accused for trial, no other authority has power to direct him to change his opinion, and file submit a charge-sheet to the Magistrate. However, the Magistrate is under no, obligation to accept the final report of the POLICE, if he does not agree with the opinion formed by the POLICE. 
(Mutharaju Satyanarayan vs Government of A.P. and others.
 *1997 Cr.L.J. 3741 (AP.))

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973—Section 482—Judges (Protection) Act, 1985—Sections 2 & 3—Penal Code, 1860—Sections 467, 468, 471 & 477-A—Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947—Section 5(1)(d)—Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996—R. 7(3)—Petition to quash FIR—Allegation of MISUSE of official position—At this stage it can not be accepted that petitioner acted as Judge & protection is available to him under the Act—No LIMITATION provided for the offence u/ss. 468, 467, 471, 420 & 120-B—Petitioner can not take the benefit of LIMITATION—Held, No case made out for quashing of FIR however petitioner can raise all the objection before the trial Court if charge-sheet is filed.


Santu Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005(2) Cr.L.R. [Raj.] 1370.
…
      there 'is no explanation why a Magistrate belonging to a distant place was asked to record the confession, in preference to a Magistrate at a near place.
(State of Maharashtra vs Damu Gopinath Shinde*"2000 Cr.L.J. 2301 )

   .. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. (Megha Singh vs State of Haryana*  *(1996) 11SCC 709 )

.. The primary DUTY of those in uniform is to uphold law and order and protect the citizen .. The Home Department of the Central Govt. cannot also afford to appear to be a helpless spectator… When the POLICE force of a State acts as the Punjab POLICE has in this case the State whose arm that force is MUST bear the consequences. It MUST do so in token of its failure to enforce law and order and protect its citizens and to compensate in some measure those who have suffered by REASON of such failure… Later, when the guilty are identified the State should endeavour to recover the said amount which is the taxpayers money. 
       Disciplinary inquiries MUST be started against the accused persons as also the SSP and DIG concerned. Others responsible for DELAYing the registration of the complaint and inquiry thereon MUST also be identified and proceeded against.  	
(Inder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others* *(1995) 3 SCC 702) 

    We have heard learned counsel on both sides. At the time the petition was moved, the girl was in POLICE custody. She has since been released. But, we are afraid this cannot be the end of the matter. The writ petition shall continue as one for qualified habeas corpus for examining the legality of the detention for determining whether the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the illegal detention as a public law remedy for violation of her fundamental RIGHTs under Article 21 of the Constitution quite apart from criminal or civil liability which may be pursued in the ordinary course. 
(Arvinder Singh Bagga vs State of Up and Others(1995) Supp (3) SCC 716 )