Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakh on a woman from HAL II Stage, Bengaluru, for abusing the process of law and suppressing facts in a habeas corpus petition concerning her son.

A division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K directed that half the penalty amount be deposited with the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the remaining with the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund. The court further warned that failure to pay would attract contempt proceedings.

The case background

The petitioner, M Maheshwari, alleged that her son, M Kriplani, had been missing since July 7 and filed a habeas corpus petition. However, she withdrew the plea on July 24, admitting that “certain erroneous statements” had been made in the petition.

Soon after, on July 29, she submitted a complaint to the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG&IGP), urging police to trace her son. With no progress reported, she again filed a habeas corpus petition.

Police’s response

State Public Prosecutor II Vijayakumar Majage informed the bench that police had traced Kriplani in Chennai on August 5 and produced him before the High Court on August 7.

The prosecution maintained that the habeas corpus plea was a proxy petition filed by Maheshwari at the behest of her son to harass Indiranagar police officials and settle personal scores against a neighbour and law enforcement personnel.

It was further submitted that Kriplani had been staying in a Chennai hotel during this period, was in touch with his mother and friends, and even assaulted a sub-inspector when police asked him to appear in court, leading to a criminal case against him there.

Petitioner’s claims

Maheshwari’s counsel argued that police had mishandled Kriplani, citing an injury certificate as evidence of alleged assault by Indiranagar police. These claims were strongly denied by the prosecution, which asserted that no such mistreatment had taken place.

Court’s observations

After reviewing the material on record, the bench found that:

  • Kriplani was not illegally detained at any point.
  • He was in constant contact with his mother, sister, and friends while staying in Chennai.
  • His friend Mahendra had also communicated with the petitioner’s counsel between July 28 and August 4, undermining the claim of disappearance.

The bench concluded that the petition was filed with an ulterior motive, constituting a misuse of the habeas corpus remedy provided under the Constitution.

Why the penalty was imposed

The High Court observed that filing frivolous and malicious petitions undermines judicial credibility and burdens the system. It stressed that such misuse must be curbed and therefore imposed a punitive cost of ₹2 lakh on Maheshwari.

Conclusion

The judgment serves as a warning to litigants against misusing constitutional remedies for personal grievances. By levying heavy costs, the court signalled that it will take strict measures to deter frivolous petitions aimed at harassing individuals or authorities.

Excerpt:

Tags:
punitive costs by high court, habeas corpus case Karnataka