M. C. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by Mohd. Rashid aged about 8 years, through his father Maulana Kallan Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sughra Begum is the mother of Mohd. Rashid. The petition has been filed by the petitioners with the allegations that their minor son Mohd. Rashid had been forcibly taken away by the police of P. S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad on 20-8-1998 at about 8. 30 P. M. from their house and since then where abouts of the boy are not being disclosed by the police. ( 2 ) COUNTER affidavits came to be filed on behalf of respondents by respondent No. 5 R. P. Sharma, Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, R. C. Sharma, another Station House Officer, P. S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad and Prashant Kumar, Senior Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad, denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It was averred in the counter affidavits that the petitioners and their family members were in the habit of filing such petitions. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, it has specifically been averred that various criminal cases have been registered against Kallan (petitioner No. 1) right from the year 1976 upto 1998. A list of such criminal cases registered against him has been filed as Annexure CA-i to the counter affidavit. The said counter affidavit further avers that Koti brother of Kallan is also involved in various criminal cases of murder, dacoity, robbery etc. A list thereof has been annexed as Annexure CA 2 to the counter affidavit. Annexure CA i to the said counter affidavit is an order of the Apex Court, from which it appears that Maulana Kallan (father of Mohd. Rashid through whom this petition has been filed) moved an application there for restoration of his son Saanu. Later on, it was revealed that Saanu had been restored to his father. The petition was, therefore, rendered infructuous and dismissed. A perusal of C. A. 3 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 shows that Anwari Beguma close relation of Kallan filed an application before the Supreme Court for recovery of his brother-in-law Yakoob. That petition was got dismissed on the ground that the missing person had returned. The petition was, therefore, rendered infructuous and dismissed. A perusal of C. A. 3 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 shows that Anwari Beguma close relation of Kallan filed an application before the Supreme Court for recovery of his brother-in-law Yakoob. That petition was got dismissed on the ground that the missing person had returned. It has been pointed out through counter affidavits filed by the respondents that a similar petition was filed in respect of Arshadanother son of the present petitioners and the said petition bearing No. 2258i of i998 (CA-7) was dismissed by this Court on 24-2-1999. Paragraph No. i2 of the counter affidavit of respondent No. 5 contains an averment that Mahfooz Alibrother of Kallan was arrested by the police in case under Sections 8/20 of N. D. P. S. Act. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners have concealed the material facts and incorrectly stated that the respondent No. 5 and others kidnapped Rashid minor son of Kallan and petitioner No. 2. It has been stressed that they are in the habit of filing writ petitions as indicated above. ( 3 ) THE present petition was earlier dismissed ex parte on i9-3-i999 by a Bench comprising of Honble O. P. Jam and Honble S. K. Agarwal JJ. On recall application being moved, the dismissal order was recalled by the Bench comprising of Honble C. Gupta and Honble S. K. Agarwal, JJ and the petition was restored to its original number. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted written arguments. ( 5 ) SRI Prashant Kumar, S. S. P. , Ghaziabad has filed counter affidavit stating in paragraph 7 thereof that he had directed the Circle Officer (City) to enquire into the matter as to whether or not Mohd. Rashid had been arrested by the police officer of Police Station Kotwali, Ghaziabad. ( 6 ) FROM perusal of record, it transpires that Circle Officer (City) Ghaziabad conducted an inquiry, the copy of which came to be filed in Court later on. Rashid had been arrested by the police officer of Police Station Kotwali, Ghaziabad. ( 6 ) FROM perusal of record, it transpires that Circle Officer (City) Ghaziabad conducted an inquiry, the copy of which came to be filed in Court later on. Under order dated 25-8-2000 the Court directed the S. S. P. , Ghaziabad to produce before the Court the entire record relating to the enquiry held by C. O. I (City), Ghaziabad in pursuance of the Courts earlier order. ( 7 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that in October 2000 police of P. S. Kotwali lifted their another son, namely, Teni along with Tahir. The child (Teni) was produced by S. I. Mahesh Singh (sick matter) was Teni and deined his identity as Rashid. That child was restored to his father who was present in court. Then the District Judge, Ghaziabad was directed to hold an inquiry and record a finding as to whether the boy who had been produced by the police was Rashid or Teni and as to whether any of the petitioners son called Rashid had been arrested by police on 20-8-1998. ( 8 ) THE inquiry report of the District Judge, Ghaziabad to be produced before the Court. It appears from the report that the respondents, on 9-io-2000, the Kotwali Police received information that Rashid Teni, son of Maulana Kallan was getting a scooter repaired at Jassipura. Thereafter, the police went there and found two boys getting scooter bearing registration No. DBU 708 repaired. One of them disclosed his name as Sazid, son of Sabir and the other disclosed his name as Tahir alias Nanhey, son of Sabir, resident of Kalia Bhatta, Ghaziabad. When police again asked Sazid to disclose his real name, he disclosed his name as Rashid alias Teni son of Kallan. The police prepared recovery memo and informed Kallan to take custody supurdagi of the boy in question. Maulana Kallan along with his family members disappe-ared from his house after receiving this information. Then both the boys were taken to the police station Kotwali and their statements were got recorded before the City Magistrate, Ghaziabad. ( 9 ) AS against this, the contention of the petitioners in enquiry before the District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad was that in October 2000, the police lifted their another son named Teni along with another boy Tahir alias Nanhey. ( 9 ) AS against this, the contention of the petitioners in enquiry before the District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad was that in October 2000, the police lifted their another son named Teni along with another boy Tahir alias Nanhey. ( 10 ) THE District Judge, Ghaziabad, as mentioned above, held inquiry pursuant to the direction of this Court and submitted inquiry report dated 5-7-2001 to this Court. He held that Kallan did not furnish any reliable evidence in regard to number and names of his sons/daughters. Tahir alias Nanhey is his relation. His finding was that Rashid was also known as Teni and Teni and Rashid was one and the same person. He also recorded the statement of Maulana Kallan. His statement was that he was not present at his house on 20-8-1998 at about 8. 30 P. M. , when the police had allegedly lifted his son from his house. Obviously, he did not lodge any report. He simply gave a telegram to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. He recorded the statements of several other persons while holding inquiry and after carefully scrutinizing the same, he held that there was no lifting of Rashid by the Kotwali Police of District Ghaziabad on 20-8-1998 at 8. 30 P. M. He further held that Maulana Kallan was in the habit of filing writ petitions in order to keep the police under pressure so that his criminal activities may be overlooked. ( 11 ) THE argument from the side of the petitioners is that the inquiry report is wholly illegal against the evidence on record. ( 12 ) THE crux of the matter is that it has vehemently been denied by the respondents that the petitioners son named Rashid was lifted by the police from his house at about 8. 30 P. M. on 20-8- 1998. On inquiry held by the District Judge, Ghaziabad, he too found that Rashid and Teni was one and the same person and further that there was no reliable evidence to hold that Maulana Kallans son Rashid had been lifted from his house by the police on 20-8-1998 at about 8. 30 P. M. To say in other words, the alleged lifting of Maulana Kallans son from his house by the Police of P. S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad on 20-8-1998 is not an admitted fact. 30 P. M. To say in other words, the alleged lifting of Maulana Kallans son from his house by the Police of P. S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad on 20-8-1998 is not an admitted fact. Rather, it is a disputed question of fact since the police refutes it and the District Judge, Ghaziabad has also so found consequent upon the inquiry held by him after recording the evidence and scrutinising the same in analytical manner. We would not comment on the criminal antece-dents of Maulana Kallan or his brothers. It, however, goes without saying that the High Court does not ordinarily enter into factual controversy while exercising discretionary writ jurisdiction. Disputed questions of fact cannot conveniently be decided in writ jurisdiction. Since the factum of alleged lifting of Mohd. Rashid from his house on 20-8-1998 at about 8. 30 P. M. is denied by the respondents, there is no room for issuing a direction to the respondents to produce his corpus before the Court and the writ petition is bound to be dismissed. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .