Crl. Writ Petition No. 1525 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Crl. Writ Petition No. 1525 of 2011 Date of decision: August 11,2011 Diwan Khan ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present: Ms. Maninder Kaur Advocate for the petitioner. ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) Diwan Khan petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this court by filing this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that respondent no.3, S.H.O., Police Station Sadar Karnal, in connivance with respondent No.4 Constable Pawan Kumar, picked up petitioner's brother Sartajali on 26.7.2011 and he was released on payment of ` 10,000/- to respondent No.4, but again on 28.7.2011, respondent No.4 picked up the aforesaid detenue Sartajali at about 11 A.M. from the fields. Tractor of the detenue was found parked in the Police Station. The petitioner was not allowed to meet the detenue. Vide order dated 29.7.2011, Warrant Officer to be appointed by the Registry of this court was directed to search the premises of Police Station Sadar, Karnal or any other place that may be pointed out by the petitioner in order to secure the presence/release of alleged detenue Sartajali. Pursuant to aforesaid order, Warrant Officer went to Police Station Sadar Karnal and has submitted his report which has been perused. Perusal of the report reveals that Sartajali was standing outside the Crl. Writ Petition No. 1525 of 2011 2 entry gate of Police Station in open area and there was no Sentry on the entry gate. Thus Sartajali had not been detained there. Sartajali and the petitioner told the Warrant Officer that the police had picked up Sartajali and one servant on 26.7.2011 and the police later on released the said persons but kept the tractor with them. It also transpired that there was dispute regarding land between the petitioner and Municipal Corporation. Complaints had been made by officials of Municipal Corporation to police against the petitioner party who allegedly wanted to encroach upon the land of Municipal Corporation. Sartajali came to the Police Station and made statement on 26.7.2011(Annexure P-5 with report of Warrant Officer) undertaking to produce documents and persons concerned regarding the land in question but instead of doing so, the instant writ petition was got filed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of report of Warrant Officer prima facie depicts that Sartajali had not been detained and even according to version of Sartajali and the petitioner, there was no detention and only tractor had been retained by the police. Habeas Corpus Writ jurisdiction cannot be used or abused to get released the tractor from police. It may be mentioned that even the tractor was not found parked in the Police Station at the time of visit of the Warrant Officer. On the contrary, to settle land dispute, process of this court has been abused by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, since the counsel representing the petitioner has standing of two years only at the bar and is thus at the threshold of her career, I am imposing only token amount of cost upon the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of ` 2500/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. August 11,2011 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE