ORDER : 1. This is a classic case of habeas corpus petition misused by both the mother and brother to find out Imamsab, aged about 34 years, are before this Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the son of petitioner No. 1 and brother of the second petitioner and to direct the respondent-Police to take appropriate action against 6th respondent and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-police to register FIR on the complaint made by the first petitioner and take action in accordance with law as per Annexure-A. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of December 2017, 6th respondent along with 8 to 9 people visited the house of the petitioners during night time and asked about their son Imamsab and told the first petitioner to inform his son about their visit to their residence and also informed that they will kill Imamsab if he does not do their work. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 23.12.2017, the first petitioner went to meet the relatives at Chandanamatti village, Dharwad Taluk and returned home in the evening at 6.00 p.m. and did not find her son and her husband informed that some people came in the car and took Imamsab. On that day onwards, mobiles of his son were switched off. On 26.12.2017, the petitioners and their family members tried to find out the whereabouts of his son Imamsab continuously for a period of 3 days and ultimately lodged a complaint to the town Police Station, Dharwad. The police have refused to take a complaint and told the petitioner to search for another few days. Again on 17.02.2018, at about 7.30 p.m. the sixth respondent Bapugouda Patil along with 8 to 10 persons forcibly entered the house of the petitioners, assaulted the family members and threatened the family members and informed them that they have purchased that house and they are the owners. Using physical force, on the same day, they thrown out the petitioners and her family members along with household articles. The entire episode and the criminal act of the 6th respondent and their followers have been recorded in the mobile. The said footage was shown to the police also. Using physical force, on the same day, they thrown out the petitioners and her family members along with household articles. The entire episode and the criminal act of the 6th respondent and their followers have been recorded in the mobile. The said footage was shown to the police also. Thereafter, on 23.02.2018, the second petitioner-brother of the Imamsab received a voice message from Imamsab stating that he was in danger and there is threat to his life. But the police refused to take the complaint and take action against respondent No. 6. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the police to take action. Since they have not taken any action for 8 months, they have approached this Court for the relief sought for. 3. When the matter came up before this Court on 26.07.2018, learned Government Advocate accepted notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. On 03.08.2018, the matter was ordered to be posted on 06.08.2018. On 08.08.2018, this Court directed the Police Inspector to register a criminal case against 6th respondent and further observed that in spite of granting sufficient time, status report was not produced and ultimately, the matter was ordered to be posted on 10.08.2018. On 03.08.2018 status report came to be filed. For want of further detailed report, the matter was posted o 20.08.2018. On 20.08.2018, a detailed report came to be filed. Subsequently, when the matter came up before this Court on 05.09.2018, Sri. C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate on instructions from Sri Laxmikant K. Talawar, Police Inspector, Dharwad Town Police Station, who was present before the Court, submitted that since they are making all sincere efforts to trace Imamsab, aged about 34 years and would positively produce him before the Court within 15 days, the matter was again adjourned to 24.09.2018. On that day, this Court observed that, “Unfortunately, police are not able to trace Imam Hussain and further stated that the investigation will be continued till trace out Imam Hussain and they would make all efforts to trace out Imam Hussain, positively within 15 days” and 15 days time was granted by this Court and that is how the matter is posted today at 2.30 p.m. on the memo filed by the Government Advocate in the morning seeking permission to produce Imamsab before the Court as he was traced out. 4. 4. The status report filed by the State clearly depicts that they have taken all possible steps sincerely to trace out Imamsab by issuing public notice to trace out Imamsab. Son of the petitioner is accused No. 3 in Dharwad Town Police Station Crime No. 189 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, they filed a detailed status report with regard to what are all the efforts made by the police authorities in tracing out Imamsab. The material on record clearly depicts that from the date of the notice issued till today, the police force was used to trace out Imamsab at the instance of the petitioners. Ultimately, today, Sri. Laxmikant K. Talawar, Police Inspector, Dharward Town Police Station, Hubli-Dharwad Police Commissionerate, Hubli, and his team Sri. R.H. Bise, Police Constable 2158 and Sri. R.C. Mudakangoudar, Police Constable 2242 produced Imamsab aged about 34 years before this Court. The status report filed by the State Government clearly depicts that at the instance of the petitioners, on a complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered Crime No. 70 of 2018 against the 6th respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is under investigation. 5. The status report further depicts that there are three proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against Imamsab in CC Nos. 792 of 2017, 242 of 2016 and 471 of 2016 and the same are pending. It also clearly depicts that on the complaint lodged by the general public, a criminal case came to be registered against Imamsab in Crime No. 189 of 2017 by the Dharwad Town Police for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No. 52 of 2018 is registered by the Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad, under Sections 466, 420, 465, 471, 468, 467 and 474 of the Indian Penal code and a Private Complaint No. 3 of 2018 is also pending before the III additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM Dharwad. Further, it also depicts that Imamsab in order to avoid to prosecute the criminal cases registered against him under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, went to Bombay, thereafter to Goa and at last to Bengaluru. Ultimately, the Police have traced out Imamsab at Bengaluru. 6. Further, the material on record clearly depicts that the petitioners knew all these criminal cases registered against Imamsab. Suppressing the material facts, they have filed this Habeas Corpus petition. The petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and they have misused the State machinery. This act of the petitioners is not only an attempt to overreach the Court but an attempt to mislead the Police. It is our experience that this type of frivolous writ petitions in the recent days is on the rise. Because it is a habeas corpus petition and personal liberty of a citizen is involved, this Court being the constitutional Court has to reach out to the secure of innocent people. Therefore, we are giving top priority to those cases. 7. Admittedly in the present case, this Court has passed several orders from the beginning till today putting pressure on the police to investigate and secure the presence of Imamsab. But we find from our experience that in most of the cases, there is no cause much less sufficient cause for the parties to approach this Court. Litigants and members of the Bar appear to have not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writ of habeas corpus. It is high time that we have to send a clear message that the Court will not encourage such litigants and tolerate such abuse of the judicial process. 8. It is well settled that the litigants should approach the Court with clean hands. If not, neither they are entitled to be heard on merits nor they are entitled for any relief. People who approach the Court for the relief of an ex-parte statement, are under a contract with the Court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the Court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant. It is the duty of the Court to examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. It is the duty of the Court to examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. To maintain a strictest vigilance over the abuse of process of Court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa.” May societal pollutants create new problems of un-redressed grievance, the Court should ensure to take cases where the justice of the list well justified it. 9. Admittedly filing of the present case has not only wasted the precious time of the court but is also an abuse of the process of the court and misusing the State machinery is nothing but an attempt to daring ride on the Court. Though we incline to impose heavy cost to curb such litigations, taking into consideration the fact that the first petitioner, who is the mother of Imamsab, aged about 67 years and the second petitioner, who is the brother of Imamsab, aged about 38 years and their occupation is mentioned as housewife and coolie, respectively, we incline to impose reasonable cost to give a message to general public/ litigants to not to misuse the Habeas Corpus petition unnecessarily. 10. Imamsab, son and brother of the petitioners is before this court. When a query was made to him, he voluntarily submits that because of his transaction with the people, he went to Bombay thereafter to Goa and to Bengaluru where he was ultimately traced out by the police at Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. He also stated in the open Court in the presence of his mother, brother and the counsel representing him that he voluntarily left out and he is not in any body’s illegal detention. He further stated that there is no grievance between himself and the 6th respondent. The statement made by Imamsab is placed on record. 11. This Court appreciates the sincere efforts made by Sri. C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate, Sri. Laxmikant K. Talawar, Police Inspector, Dharwad Police Station and R.H. Bise and Sri. R.B. Mudakangoudar, Police Constables, in tracing out Imamsab. 12. In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 11. This Court appreciates the sincere efforts made by Sri. C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate, Sri. Laxmikant K. Talawar, Police Inspector, Dharwad Police Station and R.H. Bise and Sri. R.B. Mudakangoudar, Police Constables, in tracing out Imamsab. 12. In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the petitioners along with Imamsab to the Police Welfare Fund within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the Additional Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad, is directed to send a copy of the same to the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of the said amount as land revenue.