ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. This application is preferred with the following main prayer:- “(A) Be pleased to stay further proceedings of aforesaid Special Criminal Application No. 5607 of 2015 till the criminal trial in respect of C.R. No. I-90/15 lodged with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad, is over.” 3. On 09.12.2015, the following questions arose for determination:- “1. Whether this Hon'ble Court upon being satisfied, should declare that the petitioners herein have approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands by filing false and perfunctory affidavits and should therefore, dismiss the captioned writ petition with exemplary and punitive cost, for misusing judicial process? 2. Whether this Hon'ble Court upon being satisfied as referred to above, should issue appropriate directions for the prosecution of the petitioner as per the provisions of Sections 191 to 193, 196 and other applicable provisions of Indian Penal Code, for giving false evidence? 3. Whether this Hon'ble court should allow the wasting of judicial time and public money at the behest of the petitioners, who have initiated the captioned proceedings to perpetrate their malicious and ill-intended design to create unnecessary sensation and shock in the society for creating disturbance and law and order situation, by concocting the story of abduction and illegal confinement of Mr. Hardik Pate by the Police Authorities? 4. Whether the litigants like the petitioners should be allowed to pollute the stream of justice for personal gains by having tarnished the image and reputation of the Police Authorities by indulging in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood by putting in motion, the habeas corpus proceedings against the State, and then to allow to go scot-free by simply withdrawing the petition? 5. Whether the Advocate for the petitioners who filed the above writ petition for habeas corpus, is I not obliged to act as an officer of this Hon'ble Court for assisting the Hon'ble Court consistent with his duty imposed under the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Bar Council Rules?” 4. Considering the submissions advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the evidence which has been brought on record will be taken into consideration and the request which has been made by learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. Considering the submissions advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the evidence which has been brought on record will be taken into consideration and the request which has been made by learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. B.M Mangukiya for staying the proceedings is unwarranted inasmuch as the questions which are required to be decided by this Court pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2015 are independent and we are of the view that the decision of this Court will not influence the case of the applicants before the Trial Court. It will be open for the applicants to file a rejoinder before this Court without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the Trial Court. 5. With the above clarification, this application stands disposed of. The main matter to come up on 28th January, 2016.