M. C. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the wife of respondent No. 5 Babu and respondents No. 6 to 8 are her other family members. Through this Habeas Corpus Petition she has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents No. 1 to 4 to produce respondents No. 5 to 8 before the Court. ( 2 ) THE allegations are that she is the only lady in her family and on 11-11-2003 at about 2. 30 0 clock, the Mora-dabad Police entered her house in dark-ness of night and arrested respondents No. 5 to 8 without any warrant, giving assurance that after inquiry they would be left from Police Station, but she failed to obtain any information from the police about them thereafter, who, according to her, illegally detained in police custody. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad; respondent No. 2 is S. O. /s. H. O. of Police Station Civil Lines, Moradabad; respondent No. 3 is S. O. /s. H. O. Police Station Manjola, District Moradabad and respondent No. 1 is In-charge, Special Staff of Police, District Moradabad. From the side of respondents four counter affidavits have been filed, i. e. of Rishi Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Moradabad on behalf of respondent No. 1, of 0. P. Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad respondent No. 2, of Ashok Kumar, Station Officer, P. S. Majhola, District Moradabad respondent No. 3 and of Kavindra Narain Misra, Inspector, Special Operation Group, District Moradabad respondent No. 4. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit to say that she herself was present at her house when the police allegedly took away respondents No. 5 to 8 from her house. ( 5 ) WE have heard Sri Pankaj Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A. G. A. from the side of the respondents. ( 6 ) IT is emphatically denied from the side of the respondents through the counter affidavit referred to above that the police visited the house of the petitioner or respondents No. 5 to 8 on 11-11-2003 and arrested them. It is averred that the involvement of respondent No. 6 Sipahi Lal came to light on 25-12-2003 when two accused persons were arrested. It is averred that the involvement of respondent No. 6 Sipahi Lal came to light on 25-12-2003 when two accused persons were arrested. Then Special Operation Group Team led by S. I. A. K. Singh along with one Govardhan Singh Verma went in search of Sipahi Lal and he was apprehended on 26-12-2003. From his possession a country made pistol was recovered pertaining to case crime No. 1855 of 2003 under Section 392 I. P. C. , registered at Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad. He was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad on 27-12-2003 and sent to jail in pursuance of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was allegedly a hardened criminal involved in a number of cases of dacoity etc. It is also averred that respondents No. 5 to 8 being to Bawaria caste, changing their place of residence frequently. False allegations have allegedly been made in the writ petition to put undue pressure on the police. In the counter affidavit of Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 3, criminal history of respondent No. 6 Sipahi Lal has also been given which indicates that he is involved in as many as 11 criminal cases including of robbery, dacoity, attempt to murder etc. Respondent No. 6 Sipahi Lal having been arrested in a criminal case, he is in judicial custody under the orders of the Court. The arrest of other respondents No. 5, 7 and 8 has emphatically been refuted by the respondents. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, would not ordinarily enter into factual controversy. Since the custody of respondent No. 6 is perfectly legal and there is nothing to establish the arrest or custody of respondents No. 5, 7 and 8 with the respondents No. 1 to 4, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ dismissed. .