Comolaints before the Commission post-mortem report, which also mentioned the fracture of three bones in the chest region. In addition, the allegations about the shaving of his head and being driven around town on a donkey were substantiated by the statements of witnesses. The DIG, Tirhut range, opined that the Station Ofrtcer(SO)-in-chaige of the police station was guilty, and the Superintendent of Police, '\^ishali, was directed to take action against him. However, as the complainant also filed a petition before a court on the same issue, investigation in the said case was stalled. The guilty SO-in-charge, though initially suspended, had been reinstated and no action had been taken against the other erring police officers, though it was admitted that Nageshwar Singh died owing to torture and beating inflicted by the police. Upon perusal of the report, the Commission noted that the death of the victim in police custody was admitted. In addition, it was also admitted that the deceased was not produced before the Magistrate ^vithin 24 hours of his arrest, from ^vhich an inference of illegal confinement with ulterior motives could be drawn. Further, atrocities of the police on the deceased were also admitted. The Commission noted that though six persons were arraigned as the assailants, no action had been taken against them on the ground that the matter was pending before the court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission directed the Government of Bihar to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as immediate interim relief to the dependents of the deceased, complete the investigation of the case expeditiously, and prosecute the guilty police officials, invoking if necessary, the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr.PC. Further, the Commission directed that departmental action be initiated against the errant police officials for causing serious mortal injuries to the deceased. The Commission also observed that the State Government was at liberty to initiate proceedings for the recovery of the sum of interim relief from the errant police officers. The Commission was informed that the sanction for compensation was issued. COMMENT The Commission observed that it was unfortunate that the stalling of the investigation and departmental action for more than five years were being justified on the ground of pendency of a private complaint filed by the brother of the deceased. This was the result of a misreading, designedly or otherwise, of the law. The pendency of a private complaint did not tie the hands of the investigation. The course to be adopted when there is a case 'pending otherwise than on a police report' before the court, is expressly provided for by Section 210 of the Cr.PC. All that needs to be done is to bring the matter to the notice of the court where the private complaint is pending. The court would stay firrther proceedings-to enable the police to coinplete the investigation. Both cases would then be tried together. The pendency of the private case under which the police tried to take shelter for their inaction, was by itself no. ground for inaction. 95