ORDER P.K. Tare, J. 1. This is a petition for issuing directions of the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the petitioner's nephew Mohd. Yusuf and another person, Bahar Shah were put under wrongful restraint by the respondent. The petition was filed on 29-12-1959. 2. The respondent, in his return, alleges that the detenues are suspected of complicity in connection with the mysterious disappearance of the four women of the locality. Therefore, Mohd. Yusuf and Bahar Shah were sent for the purpose of interrogation. The respondent denies that the said persons have been put under wrongful restraint or that they have been under detention at any time. 3. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the said persons are said to have been released, in as much as, they were not further called for interrogation in the police station house. The counsel for the petitioner admits this fact. As a result of this, the petition has become infructuous. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the question of wrongful detention should be enquired into by this Court. In our opinion, the decision of the question would be merely an academic one. The powers under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code are exercisable for the limited purpose of enquiry into the validity of the detention of a person. It is not for this Court to enquire into an academic finding whether the person said to be restrained was under detention at any particular period of time, particularly so when the person admits to have been released from the alleged wrongful detention. 4. In a similar case, where the detenue was put under detention by the military authorites, who released him on bail with a further direction that he shall be tried by the ordinary Criminal Court, the Calcutta High Court held in Amarendra Chandra Chakravorty vs. Garrison Engineer and others A.I.R. 1945 Cal 340, that the petition had become infructuous. Similarly, in Homi Rustomji Pardivala vs. Sub-Inspector Baig and others A.I.R. 1944 Lah 196, a Special Bench of the Lahore High Court held that the Court could not go into the merits of the arrest and detention under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the detenue was released from custody. Similarly, in Homi Rustomji Pardivala vs. Sub-Inspector Baig and others A.I.R. 1944 Lah 196, a Special Bench of the Lahore High Court held that the Court could not go into the merits of the arrest and detention under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the detenue was released from custody. We are in agreement with the observations of the learned Judges of the said High Courts in concluding that it is not for the High Court to go into the merits of the alleged wrongful restraint or detention after the detenue is released. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the decision of the question of wrongful detention was material in the present case, in as much as his client would be entitled to damages for wrongful arrest and detention, in case it was found so. We are of opinion that it is not within the ambit of powers conferred by Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to adjudicate upon this aspect of this case, which would be a matter for decision by a Civil Court, if at all the matter is taken up there. This Court, excercising powers under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot give a relief by way of damages for any alleged tort that might have been committed. In this connection See In re: Sushil Kumar Sinha vs. The Government of West Bengal 53 C.W.N. 545. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that costs of these proceedings should be awarded to his client. The learned counsel for the respondent, inviting attention to the Full Bench decisions of the Madras and the Patna High Courts in Ramammal vs. Vijayaraghavalu and another I.L.R. 55 Mad 1049. and Basanta Chandra Ghosh vs. King-Emperor I.L.R. 23 Pat 968, urged that costs could not be awarded in proceedings under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the consensus of opinion of different High Courts, the proceedings under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code are criminal in their nature and, therefore, no costs can be awarded in such proceedings, unless rules are framed under Section 491 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code providing for the awarding of costs. In this connection see Basudeva vs. Rex A.I.R. 1949 All 513. In this connection see Basudeva vs. Rex A.I.R. 1949 All 513. But, this High Court has framed the requisite rules under Section 491 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 11 of the said rules empowers this Court to award costs in cases under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the question of costs is left to the discretion of the Court and taking the circumstances of the present case into consideration, we do not feel inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner in the matter of costs. 7. As a result, this petition fails and is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed