JUDGMENT : B. Pugalendhi, J. (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent to produce the body or person of the detenu namely Jeyavelan, S/o.Krishnasamy, aged about 39 years/husband of the petitioner, from the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 6 before this Court and set him at liberty.) The petitioner, wife of one Jeyavelan/detenu, filed this petition on 18.05.2020 that her husband is in the illegal detention of the respondents 2 to 6 and prayed for issuing a writ of habeas corpus to produce her husband before this Court from the custody of the respondents 2 to 6 and to set him at liberty. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, Jeyavelan, is an Advocate practicing at Kovilpatti. The sixth respondent is well known to her husband for a long time and due to such friendship, her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him. He is also making regular payment of interest. While so, all of a sudden, on 30.04.2020, a group of policemen, in mufti, had barged into their residence and started to break open the gate at the entrance of their house. They used filthy language and abused her and one of the person in mufti pulled her nighty, as she was holding the grill gate together. They broke open the gate with crowbar and forcibly entered into the house around 11.00 pm and pulled her husband out of the house. Without even bothering that her husband is a Lawyer, the fifth respondent slapped him with hands on the face and chest and started to threaten that he will kill him if he does not return the amount to the sixth respondent. 3. In this regard, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Kovilpatti East Police Station in the night hours. The lady Sub-Inspector of Police, who was present in the police station, informed her that the police, who came to her house, is from Tenkasi. On 01.05.2020, the petitioner received a phone call from her husband’s mobile number and her husband cried that he has been tortured by the second respondent. On 02.05.2020, the third respondent called her over phone around 12.00 noon that they are coming back along with her husband. On 01.05.2020, the petitioner received a phone call from her husband’s mobile number and her husband cried that he has been tortured by the second respondent. On 02.05.2020, the third respondent called her over phone around 12.00 noon that they are coming back along with her husband. They came with a Lawyer and insisted her to give her husband’s Aadhar card, PAN Card, details of their properties and other property documents, etc., and also collected her signature in blank pro notes. On 04.05.2020, the police took the petitioner’s husband to the Sub Registrar’s Office at Kovilpatti for registering a document in favour of the sixth respondent. The Sub Registrar refused to register the document and her husband was dropped in their house. 4. Thereafter, on the next day, her husband was picked up by them from the house, but, he did not return home. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. 5. Mr.N.Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s husband, a practicing Advocate, has been taken forcibly by the second respondent police on 30.04.2020, kept in illegal custody till 04.05.2020 and was found missing from 05.05.2020 afternoon. 6. The matter came up for hearing on 22.05.2020 and this Court was shocked over the manner in which the occurrence was described. Therefore, this Court called the Superintendent of Police, through the virtual hearing and also called the sixth respondent through audio call. The sixth respondent admitted that there are some money transactions and the detenu owe a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to him, for which, he gave two cheques and those cheques, on presentation, were returned for insufficient funds. When he lodged a complaint, the detenu undertook to execute some documents in favour of him and therefore, he went and waited in the Sub Registrar’s Office at Kovilpatti, but the respondent did not turn up. 7. The Superintendent of Police, who appeared through video call, assured this Court that he would form a special team to trace the whereabouts of the detenu. By recording the said submissions, this Court posted the matter to 27.05.2020. 8. The second respondent has filed a status report dated 22.05.2020, denying the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner. 7. The Superintendent of Police, who appeared through video call, assured this Court that he would form a special team to trace the whereabouts of the detenu. By recording the said submissions, this Court posted the matter to 27.05.2020. 8. The second respondent has filed a status report dated 22.05.2020, denying the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner. He further stated that both the petitioner's husband and the sixth respondent appeared for enquiry on 04.05.2020 and both of them informed that they will settle the matter amicably between themselves or through the concerned civil Court and left the station. 9. Learned Counsel for the sixth respondent filed a report that the petitioner's husband Jeyavelan owe the sixth respondent a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. From 2018, Jeyavelan was avoiding payment and absconding for almost two years. Only in the end of April, he was located in Kovilpatti and a police complaint was lodged. On 04.05.2020, in Sengottai Police Station, he appeared and pretended co-operative and submitted a signed statement by his own hand. The parties went to Kovilpatti by 4 pm. Since the Sub-Registrar's time is over, preparation of document and payment cannot be done. It was therefore decided to prepare the document and register it on 05.05.2020. So he went to his house and returned to the Registrar Office on 05.05.2020, but the petitioner did not turn up. 10. The Superintendent of Police, in the interregnum, had formed a special team and filed a status report on 26.05.2020 and a further status report on 19.06.2020. In the said status reports, the Superintendent of Police has furnished certain factual aspects, as follows: “2. ...on 30.04.2020, the 6th respondent herein namely Abdul Rahman presented a petition against one Jeyavelan who is the husband of the petitioner herein before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi Sub Division. Upon which, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi forwarded the petition to the 2nd respondent for necessary action and report compliance. The sum and substance of the petition is as thus:- The 6th respondent namely Abdul Rahman is doing business in dealing with manufacturing of nighties in the name and style of Aysha Apparels at Vallam of Tenkasi Taluk. Out of business transaction, he is well acquainted with the husband of the petitioner herein namely Jeyavelan ie., the detenu. The sum and substance of the petition is as thus:- The 6th respondent namely Abdul Rahman is doing business in dealing with manufacturing of nighties in the name and style of Aysha Apparels at Vallam of Tenkasi Taluk. Out of business transaction, he is well acquainted with the husband of the petitioner herein namely Jeyavelan ie., the detenu. While such being the situation, during the month of December 2018, the husband of the petitioner herein namely Jeyavelan on the pretext of arranging loan to the 6th respondent approached him. Further, he asked the 6th respondent to give him the car Innova Crysta bearing registration no.TN-76-H-6951 belongs to 6th respondent for his personal use and promised to return back the same within few months. Moreover, out of business transaction the husband of the petitioner herein incurred a debt amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards the 6th respondent herein. For the debt and liability incurred, that on 15.12.2018 the husband of the petitioner herein issued two cheques each for the value of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda Branch at Kovilpatti in favour of the 6th respondent herein. When the 6th respondent put the above said cheques for collection on 03.07.2019 through his banker viz., State Bank of India Branch at Shenkottai the same was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient in the bank account of the drawer of the cheques. Further the husband of the petitioner herein dishonestly misappropriated the car Innova Crysta bearing registration no.TN-76-H-6951 belonging to the 6th respondent herein. 3. ...on 04.05.2020, the husband of the petitioner herein namely Jeyavelan, ie., the detenu/missing person and the 6th respondent herein appeared before the 2nd respondent for enquiry. Both of them were enquired in length and breadth by the 2nd respondent herein. During the course of enquiry the 6th respondent herein namely Abdul Rahman made a statement stating that the husband of the petitioner herein namely Jeyavelan borrowed an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from him in order to improve his agricultural farm. Thereafter, for the debt any liability incurred he issued two cheques each for the value of Rs. 15,00,000/- in favour of the 6th respondent and the same were dishonoured when they were put for collection. Further, he added that he amicably settled the dispute by entering into compromise with the husband of the petitioner herein. 5. Thereafter, for the debt any liability incurred he issued two cheques each for the value of Rs. 15,00,000/- in favour of the 6th respondent and the same were dishonoured when they were put for collection. Further, he added that he amicably settled the dispute by entering into compromise with the husband of the petitioner herein. 5. ...the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District has formed a special team consisting of Head Constable Tr.Arul attached with Tenkasi Police Station, Head Constable Tr.Seevalamuthu of Elathur Police Station and Police Constable Tr.Muthukumar attached with Acahnputur Police Station headed by a Sub-Inspector of Police. The above special team visited Kovilpatti and Pandarampatti Village and enquired the uncle, sister of the detenu/missing person and the inhabitants of the above said areas and gained no clues regarding the whereabouts of the husband of the petitioner/detenu. 9. ...the Head Constable Tr.Kalidhass attached with Shenkottai Police Station has been deputed to find out whether the detenu Jeyavelan has been detained in any of the prisons at Tenkasi, Tirunelveli, Sankarankovil and Ambasamudram in connection with any criminal case. But the replies received from Tenkasi, Sankarankovil and Ambasamudram prisons discloses that the detenu/missing person was not confined in the above prisons. 10. ...the SSI Tr.Shunmuganathan attached with Tenkasi Police Station was deputed to find out whether the detenu/missing person Jeyavelan is admitted in any of the Government Hospitals situated at Tenkasi and Tirunelveli Districts. In spite of intensive and effective steps taken which gained clues regarding the whereabouts of the husband of the petitioner/detenu and the exercise ended in futile. ... ... ... 9. ...on 05.06.2020 the special team on getting information went to 13th street of Natham Road, Mattuthavani, Madurai where the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan was having an office and enquired the inhabitants of the area regarding the whereabouts of the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan, but the same revealed nothing. 10. ...on 06.06.2020, the special team headed by the Inspector of Police, Thiru M.Hariharan visited Subramaniapuram of Kovilpatti and enquired the witness Thiru Alexander and made enquiry regarding the whereabouts of this missing person, but no clue made out and the arduous steps taken by the special team ended in vain. 17. ...on 18.06.2020 the special team enquired one Thiru Samsudeen of Kovilpatti who is the close aide of the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan. 17. ...on 18.06.2020 the special team enquired one Thiru Samsudeen of Kovilpatti who is the close aide of the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan. He said that the wife of the missing person viz., Sowkiyadevi – the petitioner herein met him and requested to provide her a new SIM Card for enabling her to contact her husband, as her husband is possessed of cellular phone. As requested by the said Sowkiyadevi – the petitioner herein, the above said Samsudeen obliged her request and provided a JIO company SIM Card bearing No.93457 56998 to her. With the help of the above said SIM Card Tmt.Sowkiyadevi – the petitioner herein talked with her husband, who in turn asked her to inform Samsudeen to come to the Bridge at the By Pass Road at Kovilpatti. Accordingly, he went to the spot mentioned by Thiru Jeyavelan and met him, who came in a Motorcycle. At that time, Jeyavelan asked him to dismantle the shed provided at the garden land at Avalnatham village along with his uncle Thiru Harikrishnan and take possession of the materials and then went away. 18. ...Mr.Hariharan, Inspector of Police, Shencottai Circle, examined the call detail record of the above said cellular phone No.93457 56998 and found that the said cellular phone number was contacted frequently from cellular phone no.75981 94384. Then he verified the call details of phone no.75981 94384, which belongs to Vinith Kumar, S/o. Thiru Harikrishnan, the uncle of missing person Thiru Jeyavelan and it is found that the said cellular phone number was contacted frequently from cellular phone number 90471 54681. When the call details of phone number 90471 54681 were verified it is found that the said phone belongs to one Sakkarayan of Manupatti of Udumalaipet, Tiruppur District. 19. ...on 20.06.2020, the special team went to Manupatti village of Udumalaipet and enquired Thiru Jothiraj who is the husband of the President of Panchayat Board of the said village and one Thiru Senthilraj, Vice President of the above said Panchayat Board by showing the photograph of the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan, regarding his whereabouts. They said that the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan was found for 20 days in the farm of one Manivannan where one Chinnarasu is working as a guard on the farm. Then the special team enquired the said Chinnarasu about the whereabouts of missing person Thiru Jeyavelan. They said that the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan was found for 20 days in the farm of one Manivannan where one Chinnarasu is working as a guard on the farm. Then the special team enquired the said Chinnarasu about the whereabouts of missing person Thiru Jeyavelan. He said that the missing person namely Thiru Jeyavelan stayed with him in the farm and he rendered necessary assistance to him by providing two SIM Card to him also. Thereafter, the said Thiru Jeyavelan went away from the farm on 17.06.2020. 20. ...the special team enquired Thiru Narayanan of Podipatti village, of Tiruppur District on 21.06.2020. He said that he is well acquainted with one Thiru Ganapathy who is the elder brother of the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan and he met the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan some 25 days back and the missing person asked him to secure a place for him to reside alone. Acceding to the request of the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan, he arranged for the stay of him at the farm of Thiru Manivannan after talking with Thiru Manivannan and his farm guard Thiru Chennarasu. As such the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan stayed at the above said farm till 17.06.2020 and then left to Sundarapuram of Coimbatore. 21. ...on 21.06.2020 the special team enquired the owner of the above said farm of Thiru Manivannan. He stated that the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan stayed at his farm at Podipatti upto 17.06.2020 and then went to Sundarapuram and stayed at the house belonging to him. On 21.06.2020 when the police party went along with him to secure the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan at Sundarapuram, the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan went elusive. The police enquired the neighbors of the place, viz., Thiru Manickam and Thiru Kumar about the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan. They said that Thiru Jeyavelan stayed there for 3 days and on 20.06.2020 at 10.00 pm, he went away in his motorcycle and his whereabouts has not known to them. 22. ...on 21.06.2020 the special team enquired one Thiru Duraisingh of Manupatti, who is working as an Accountant in Ganapathy Departmental store. The said Duraisingh told that the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan frequented their shop and when questioned as to why he is coming frequently to the shop during the time of Corona virus pandemic, he replied that his name is Jeyavelan and he is an Advocate at Kovilpatti. The said Duraisingh told that the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan frequented their shop and when questioned as to why he is coming frequently to the shop during the time of Corona virus pandemic, he replied that his name is Jeyavelan and he is an Advocate at Kovilpatti. Further, he ensured that the person who frequented his store and the person whose photo was shown to him by police are one and the same. Moreover, he added that the image of the missing person is available in the CCTV cameras installed at the shop. 28. ...from the enquiry made by the special team, it is clear that the missing person Thiru Jeyavelan in order to escape from the police enquiry regarding the cheating indulged by him, is keeping himself elusive and from the image found in CCTV footage he is alive and wantonly evading police enquiry and thereby wasting the precious time of the police and this Hon'ble Court and wasting the public exchequer.” 11. The investigating agency has also produced a video footage, which has been recovered by the special team, showing that the petitioner’s husband, in a casual manner, is purchasing some fruits from a fruits’ stall at Usilampatti. The video footage reveals that the detenu was not in any illegal detention and was freely roaming around, purchasing vegetables and groceries in a shop during night hours. 12. This Court directed the respondents to produce the video footage to the learned Counsel for the petitioner for verification from his client. On 02.07.2020, after verification, Mr. Anandapadmanaban, learned Counsel, on instructions, submitted before this Court that his client, after viewing the video footage, instructed him to state that the person found in the video footage is not her husband. 13. Therefore, this Court issued further orders and directed the first respondent to produce the detenu and to file additional status report. Subsequently, a status report was filed on 01.07.2020 and thereafter, various reports were filed on 11.08.2020, 11.09.2020, 23.11.2020 and on 03.02.2021. 14. In the meantime, on 12.10.2020, it was represented on behalf of the petitioner that the detenu is in Kerala and he contacted the petitioner and therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this habeas corpus petition. 15. 14. In the meantime, on 12.10.2020, it was represented on behalf of the petitioner that the detenu is in Kerala and he contacted the petitioner and therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this habeas corpus petition. 15. This Court did not accept the same and passed further orders on 04.11.2020 directing the detenu to file an affidavit as to what happened from the day one till the date on which he contacted the petitioner over phone from Trivandrum. Accordingly, supporting affidavits of the petitioner and the detenu dated 20.11.2020 were filed. 16. The petitioner has reiterated her stand that her husband was illegally taken from her house at Kovilpatti in the midnight of 30.04.2020, kept in illegal custody from 01.05.2020 till 04.05.2020, sent back on 04.05.2020 and again taken for the purpose of registration on 05.05.2020. Thereafter, she sought some assistance from an Advocate one Sanjeev Kumar and as per his advice, contacted the Counsel on record in this case on 11.05.2020 and filed this habeas corpus petition on 18.05.2020. 17. According to her, her husband contacted her in the month of October, 2020 and immediately, she instructed her Advocate to inform the same to the Court. With regard to the video footage produced by the investigating agency, she has taken a stand that her husband’s brother will also resemble like him and it is her husband’s brother and not her husband. 18. The detenu has also filed an affidavit before this Court that on 30.04.2020, the third respondent along with the fifth respondent came to his residence, taken him to Sengottai Police Station, kept him in illegal custody, assaulted him and insisted him to execute a sale deed in favour of the sixth respondent and thereafter, taken him to the Sub-Registrar Office, Kovilpatti, on 04.04.2020. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document for some reason and therefore, they fixed the registration for the next day, dropped him in his residence and again taken him on 05.05.2020 from his residence, taken to the Sub- Registrar’s Office. Even on that day, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document and therefore, he was taken to Kerala via Sengottai and kept there for ten days with an intention to create a document in Kerala and thereafter, they have brought him back to Sengottai. Even on that day, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document and therefore, he was taken to Kerala via Sengottai and kept there for ten days with an intention to create a document in Kerala and thereafter, they have brought him back to Sengottai. He escaped from them, contacted his wife on 15.11.2020, returned home on 20.11.2020 and now taking treatment. According to him, from 05.05.2020 till 12.11.2020, initially he was kept under the illegal detention of the police and later, abducted by the sixth respondent to various places and he escaped from their custody at Udumalaipet and remained undercover, due to fear of life and emerged out only on 12.11.2020. 19. This Court paid it’s anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record. 20. The detenu is a Lawyer, who was said to be in illegal detention. He was having some money dispute with the sixth respondent. He received some money in the year 2018 from the sixth respondent and gave two cheques. Those cheques, on presentation, returned for insufficient funds. The sixth respondent has also chosen to lodge a complaint and the second respondent Police knowing that it is a civil dispute, taken this petitioner from Kovilpatti for enquiry on 04.05.2020, recorded his statement and closed the petition enquiry, during the Covid-19 pandemic situation when the entire transport was prohibited. 21. It is further alleged that the detenu was taken to the Sub-Registrar’s Office on 04.05.2021, for the purpose of settling the sixth respondent, however, there is no registration of any document on that day. 22. From the materials placed before the Court, it appears that in order to intimidate the sixth respondent, the detenu hide himself and filed this habeas corpus petition, as he exerted pressure on the detenu to execute some documents for the money owe to him. Therefore, to evade the same, the detenu went underground and to intimidate the sixth respondent from pressing his claim, filed this petition through his wife/the petitioner herein. 23. In their hide and seek game, this Court as well as the District Police were made parties and were made to spend considerable time and energy to find out the whereabouts of the detenu. Since the detenu is a professional, this Court has called the Superintendent of Police through video call and issued slew of directions. 23. In their hide and seek game, this Court as well as the District Police were made parties and were made to spend considerable time and energy to find out the whereabouts of the detenu. Since the detenu is a professional, this Court has called the Superintendent of Police through video call and issued slew of directions. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police has also formed special teams to find out the detenu. The special teams were able to collect the video footage in the month of June, 2020, that the petitioner’s husband is roaming around Usilampatti, purchasing some vegetables in a shop. They produced the video footage before this Court. This video footage was also directed to be forwarded to the petitioner and her Counsel and to verify the same. Even then, the petitioner as well as the detenu has not come forward to disclose the correct fact before this Court. However, the investigation revealed that the detenu/petitioner’s husband requested the person who has given asylum at Udumalaipet to provide another phone and a SIM card. The call details were produced by the special team, which shows that they are in constant with each other. 24. The petitioner’s husband, claiming to be a practicing Advocate, has not taken any steps even though when it was claimed in the petition that he was illegally detained by the police from 30.04.2021 to 04.05.2021 and he was left in his house on 04.05.2021. He came out from the hiding place only in the month of October, 2020 and thereafter, attempted to withdraw the petition, without taking any steps as against his alleged detention. This Court directed him to file an affidavit. Even in the affidavit, they have not furnished the details properly. There is no explanation whatsoever as to when he escaped from the clutches of the sixth respondent, where he stayed and why he has not taken any steps to contact his wife. The fact remains that this Court has entertained the habeas corpus petition on 21.05.2020 and issued various directions and some of the orders of this Court was also published in the daily newspapers. Even then, the detenu, a Lawyer, claims that he is not aware of the same. 25. With regard to the video footage produced by the investigating agency, it has been denied by the petitioner that it is not the detenu and it is his brother. Even then, the detenu, a Lawyer, claims that he is not aware of the same. 25. With regard to the video footage produced by the investigating agency, it has been denied by the petitioner that it is not the detenu and it is his brother. It is their stand that the person in the video footage is the detenu's brother and both the detenu as well as his brother resemble each other. Though such a plea was taken, nothing was produced before this Court to substantiate the same. 26. The writ of habeas corpus is a power conferred to the High Courts to issue certain writ in extra ordinary circumstances and when there is no other efficacious alternative remedy. Of late, this writ is being misused and the valuable time of the Court is spent for ratifying the illegal affairs. A Division Bench of this Court in Hari Prasad Malgam v. Superintendent of Police, Theni District and Others [HCP(MD)No.364 of 2018, dated 28.04.2018], has observed as follows: “11.1. It is also explained that a writ of habeas corpus was deliberately denied to Indians, by the then British Government in the Government of India Act. In the Constituent Assembly, there was serious discussion on Articles 21, 22, 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, especially, the writ of Habeas Corpus, as during the freedom struggle, the British Government arrested the freedom fighters and put them in jail, without enquiry (endlessly) and therefore, writ of habeas corpus was introduced into Articles 32 and 226 in order to protect the citizens from unnecessary harassment by the police power of the State. However, this saluatory remedy has been now highly misused and abused. 11.2. It is submitted that the writ of habeas corpus has been used under trying circumstances where parents of the girls and boys, who eloped with his/her lover were utilizing this remedy for the purpose of getting back the ranaway sons/daughters; but, in this case, the petitioner has used this provision to perpetuate a fraud and therefore, heavy costs must be imposed while closing this petition.” 27. This is a glaring example as to how the habeas corpus petitions are misused. This is a glaring example as to how the habeas corpus petitions are misused. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner has misused this petition to solve his private dispute with the sixth respondent and therefore, this Court deems it fit to dismiss the petition with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] jointly payable by the petitioner and the detenu, to the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, shall distribute the funds as honorarium to the special team members, who have spent their valuable time and put their efforts to trace the detenu. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, shall forward the balance funds, if any, to the Tamil Nadu Police Benevolent Fund. 28. The materials placed before this Court also disclose that the second respondent/Inspector of Police has entertained a civil dispute and appears to have acted as a collection agent of the sixth respondent. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, shall look into the case file and initiate necessary disciplinary proceedings as against the second respondent, if he satisfies that the second respondent has acted as collection agent of the sixth respondent, by entertaining a civil dispute. 29. In the result, this habeas corpus petition stands dismissed.