JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---The petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and seeking a writ of habeas corpus under which they sought directions to respondents to produce the petitioner No. 1 who was taken in custody by respondent No. 2 before the Court and for passing the appropriate orders after ascertaining the facts of the case. The petitioners further sought protection in so far as the arrest of petitioners No. 2 and 3 alongwith their daughters Chitra and Kavita, and for such other appropriate relief as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioner No. 1 married to one Mrigi of Bhopal on 20-11-1992. After the marriage Mrigi resided at Nagpur with the petitioner No. 1 for some time and a daughter is born to them out of the wedlock. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1 and in-laws of the wife of the petitioner No. 1. The relations between the husband and wife at the initial stage were cordial; but as their relations became strained, a petition for dissolution of marriage came to be filed by the petitioner husband before the Family Court, Nagpur which came to be registered as H.M.P. Application No. A-727/1996. As an offshoot of the matrimonial dispute between the two, the wife Smt. Mrigi is alleged to have filed a complaint against the petitioners on 14-3-98 with the Police Station, Dhantoli, Nagpur, pursuant to which an offence under section 498-A; section 506 B read with section 34 of I.P.C. came to be registered against the petitioners vide Crime No. 96/98. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2 at Nagpur and were released on bail. A charge sheet in the case has been filed and the case is pending for trial vide Criminal Case No. 86/98 in the said Court. The wife of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Mrigi after lodging the report on 14-3-98 against the petitioners left their house and is presently residing with her parents at Bhopal and since then she has not come to Nagpur except for attending the case in the Family Court or the High Court. 3. The wife of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Mrigi after lodging the report on 14-3-98 against the petitioners left their house and is presently residing with her parents at Bhopal and since then she has not come to Nagpur except for attending the case in the Family Court or the High Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 7-12-98 at about 8.00 a.m. 7-8 police officers from Bhopal came to their residence and asked them to attend the Police Station at Dhantoli, Nagpur for the reason that the wife of the petitioner No.1 has lodged a complaint against them of torture and harassment in the month of March 1998 with the Special Women Cell of Mahila Thana, Jahangirabad, Bhopal on the basis of which offences under sections 498-A and 506-B read with section 34 of I.P.C came to be registered at the said Police Station, Bhopal. The petitioner No.1 attended Dhantoli police station and informed the police party from Bhopal that Dhantoli Police Station has already registered the offence against the petitioners for the same crime and now the petitioners cannot be arrested by Bhopal Police Station, on the same charge; but inspite of this, the respondents are alleged to have illegally detained the petitioner No.1 at Police Station, Dhantoli, at this stage the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have no authority under the law to arrest and prosecute the petitioners for the same offence for which they are being tried at Nagpur by registering another case at Bhopal in relation to the same transaction, for the alleged offence under sections 498-A, 596-B read with section 34 of I.P.C. on the complaint of Smt. Mrigi and therefore the arrest of the petitioner No. 1 was unlawful and he deserves to be set at liberty. It is submitted that before the petitioner could seek any relief from this Court, the petitioner No.1 was taken away to Bhopal and was detained at Bhopal for a period of 2 days without producing him before the Magistrate and thereafter he was released and allowed to go by the respondent No. 2. 5. It is submitted that before the petitioner could seek any relief from this Court, the petitioner No.1 was taken away to Bhopal and was detained at Bhopal for a period of 2 days without producing him before the Magistrate and thereafter he was released and allowed to go by the respondent No. 2. 5. The respondent No.1 has chosen not to file any affidavit in reply by way of their return; but they do not dispute the facts that the police party from Bhopal had came to Nagpur and sought assistance of Dhantoli Police Station in causing arrest of the petitioner No.1 and took him away to Bhopal. It is submitted that necessary station diary entries have been made at Police Station, Dhantoli to that effect. 6. The respondent No. 2 filed return in the Court which is sworn by Shri G.S. Khushwaha, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, District Bhopal and the Officer in Charge in the present case. It has been specifically stated that as the F.I.R. came to be lodged at Mahila Thana, Jahangirabad, Bhopal by Smt. Mrigi and Crime No. 71/98 came to be registered against the petitioners and four others namely Umakant, Ujwala, Kavita and Archana for having committed offence under sections 498-A and 506-B of I.P.C. a team of Police Officers was sent to Nagpur and they approached Police Station, Dhantoli for seeking their assistance for arresting petitioners for the purpose of investigation in the aforesaid crime. It is also accepted that the police party came to know through one of the relatives of the petitioner that a criminal case against them is already registered under sections 498-A and 506-B by Police Station, Dhantoli and that the charge sheet in the matter has been filed in the Court at Nagpur and therefore, after verification of the said information and getting the relevant record, came to Bhopal, and reported the matter to the higher officials of the respondents. The respondent No. 2 then filed a final report under section 169 of Criminal Procedure Code and the case was closed; a copy of the same is annexed to the return as Annexure R-1. It is therefore, submitted that the respondents have not arrested the petitioners and other persons named in the F.I.R. and the allegation as regards the ill-treatment meted out to the petitioner No. 1 at Mahila Thana, Jahangirabad is specifically denied. It is therefore, submitted that the respondents have not arrested the petitioners and other persons named in the F.I.R. and the allegation as regards the ill-treatment meted out to the petitioner No. 1 at Mahila Thana, Jahangirabad is specifically denied. It is submitted that the police has closed the case, there was no question of arresting the petitioners or torturing them or threatening them. It has been specifically stated that the petitioner No. 1 was not illegally detained at Police Station Dhantoli or at Bhopal. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent No. 2 has been wrongly described by the petitioner as Commissioner of Police of Bhopal; there is no post of Commissioner of Police of Bhopal; there is no post of Commissioner of Police in Bhopal; and in view of these submissions, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed. 7. The respondents did not dispute the fact that the petitioner No. 1 was called from his residence at Dhantoli Police Station and the police party sent by respondent No. 2 took the petitioner No. 1 to Bhopal. The petitioner No. 1 was held at the Police Station without showing his formal arrest and producing before the competent Magistrate. This prima facie shows that the petitioner No. 1 was arrested; as he was in the custody of the officers of the respondent No. 2 till he came to be released. The petitioner No. 1 has also placed before the Court, a copy of the report lodged with the Officer in Charge Mahila Police Station, Bhopal on 8-12-98 duly acknowledged. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was not arrested or detained but was only called for interrogation, this is the usual excuse the police put forth, when they are questioned about the detention or arrest of a person i.e. that the person has been merely required to attend the Police Station to help them with their enquiries; such individuals some times find it harder to leave the Police Station, though as a matter of law they are free to leave at any time unless placed under arrest. The police authorities tend to take advantage of the position they are placed in under the law and defend their illegal action of wrongful detention by such equivocation which operate to deny such persons the freedom to leave. 8. The police authorities tend to take advantage of the position they are placed in under the law and defend their illegal action of wrongful detention by such equivocation which operate to deny such persons the freedom to leave. 8. Prima facie this Court is satisfied that the respondent No. 2 has wrongfully detained the petitioner No. 1 after arresting him from Nagpur. Further they have failed to produce him before the Magistrate; where he could have sought bail or could have at least had an opportunity to make a grievance to the learned Magistrate about his wrongful detention and or sought bail. But considering the fact that the police required two days to satisfy themselves that the petitioner and his relatives are not required to be arrested in the case; as the complaint was found to be baseless; they had allowed him to go, we do not propose to pass any order or issue any directions in the matter; as the petition has become infructuous. 9. This Court expects the respondent No. 2 to take appropriate action against the complainant at their end as the complainant Smt. Mrigi suppressed the fact that she had already lodged report at Dhantoli Police Station at Nagpur against petitioners for having committed offences under section 498-A, 506-B read with section 34 of I.P.C. and abused the process of law by again lodging another report at Mahila Thana, Bhopal, due to which the petitioner No. 1 has been put to unnecessary harassment of being taken to Bhopal and kept under detention by the police; so that in future such attempts are not repeated by such complainant. As we do not propose to initiate any action or pass any order, this does not mean that the petitioners are precluded from taking action against the respondents or Smt. Mrigi, for this unlawful action on their part. With these observations we dispose of the petition as infructuous. Copy of our order be sent to Superintendent of Police, Bhopal for necessary action. -----