( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by petitioner alleging that he was brought to india from Singapore on 11. 8. 1995 under a extradition treaty to face trial into four cases. The trial of the petitioner in those four cases has yet to concluded, however, while he was in jail for trial of those four cases, he was simultaneously produced and tried for other offences committed by him prior to his extradition which were not part of warrant of surrender. He submitted that all such trials in respect of the offences were without jurisdiction and amounted to misuse the extradition of the petitioner. He relied upon the case of Daya Singh Lahoria Vs. Union of India (2001) 4 SCC 516 . ( 2 ) PETITIONER's counsel aruged that because of trial of 8 criminal cases which were not part of his extradition warrant, the trial of cases for which he was extradited, got delayed and he has to spent his precious youthful years in jail. He stated that for the last 10 years he had been facing illegal trials and he had remained in jail which amounted to misuse of extradition. He prayed to the Court that his extradition be not further misused and a damages of rs. 100 cores be awarded to him as compensation for violation of his rights. ( 3 ) THE counsel for State argued that the petition should be dismissed as it is infructuous and no relief can be granted by this Court. ( 4 ) THE petitioner's prayer for a relief that there should be no further violation of the extradition warrant and no further trial of any case should take place is a speculative relief sought by the petitioner. He has not mentioned any of the other cases for which he was likely to be tried. This relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE petitioner had earlier also moved a similar writ petition being WP (Crl.) 1138/2003. The petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24. 5. 2004 As far as grant of compensation for loss of youthful period of the petitioner is concerned, I consider that he has approached wrong Court. In a criminal writ petition, the Court cannot adjudicate the disputed facts and grant damages. The petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24. 5. 2004 As far as grant of compensation for loss of youthful period of the petitioner is concerned, I consider that he has approached wrong Court. In a criminal writ petition, the Court cannot adjudicate the disputed facts and grant damages. The prayer for grant of compensation is therefore, rejected. The petitioner will however, be at liberty to seek compensation before the Civil court. The writ petition is dismissed.