Criminal Writ Petition No. 568 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Writ Petition No. 568 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.2.2011 Janak Dev Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Pratap, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, for issuance of a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to produce the detenue namely Prem Singh, son of the petitioner, who is stated to have been unlawfully detained by respondents No.5 to 7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed a detailed order on 11.5.2010 and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, to hold an enquiry into the complaint, filed by the petitioner and submit his report, within a period of six months. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Writ Petition No. 568 of 2010 2 Gurgaon, held the enquiry and submitted his report dated 14.1.2011, wherein he concluded as under:- “...In the totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the allegations of the petitioners regarding illegal detention and killing of Prem Singh by the respondents by cutting or throwing him in the furnace are not substantiated and proved. Rather, it appears clear from the record that Prem Singh was safely taken out of the company and dropped at Hero Honda Chowk on 3.10.2009. Submitted as desired...” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report, submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, is not based on sound reasoning and material evidence has not been looked into by him. He has seriously disputed the genuineness and validity of the report. He further submitted that the petitioner intends to file objections to the report. During the course of arguments, an observation has been made that even if the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, is disputed by this Court, the remedy for the petitioner lies somewhere else as a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case this Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion on the report, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition to take recourse to his lawful remedy for redressal of his grievance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, no final opinion is Criminal Writ Petition No. 568 of 2010 3 pronounced by this Court on the report, submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and the parties, if so advised, are given liberty to assail the same and to pursue their lawful remedy, available to them. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 23, 2011 “DK”