Karnataka High Court | Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost on Senior Citizen Petitioner | Frivolous Habeas Corpus Plea to Malign Police Held Abuse of Process
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaram and Justice Rajesh Rai K dismissed a writ of habeas corpus and directed the petitioner to pay punitive costs. The Court held that the litigation was filed with an ulterior motive and without bona fides. It directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,00,000, to be equally distributed between the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund. The Court further recorded that failure to deposit the costs within the prescribed period would invite contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking production of her son, alleged to be missing since 07 July 2025. She claimed that she had made inquiries with relatives and friends and, being unable to trace him, had approached the High Court earlier in WPHC No.71 of 2025. That petition, however, was withdrawn on 24 July 2025 on the ground that “certain erroneous statements have been made in the writ petition by oversight.” Thereafter, on 29 July 2025, she filed a complaint before the Director General and Inspector General of Police requesting tracing of her son. The petitioner alleged that despite this, the authorities failed to take effective steps, compelling her to file the present petition.
Upon issuance of notice, the respondents traced the alleged detenue in Chennai on 05 August 2025 and produced him before the Court on 07 August 2025. The State sought time to place supporting records before the Bench. On 18 August 2025, the Special Public Prosecutor-II filed a report contending that the writ was filed with mala fide intent to harass the Indiranagar Police through the petitioner, acting as a proxy for the alleged detenue. The report was supported by Call Detail Records (CDRs), which demonstrated that the detenue had remained in contact with his mother, sister, and a friend during the period he was claimed to be missing.
The records submitted included details of communication between the detenue and his mother from 01 July 2025 to 07 July 2025, his sister from 02 July 2025 to 04 August 2025, and his friend from 01 July 2025 to 04 August 2025. It was further noted that the detenue contacted his mother through his friend between 28 July 2025 and 01 August 2025. Significantly, during the same period, the friend contacted the petitioner’s advocate. The State argued that this sequence of communication demonstrated that the habeas corpus petition was contrived as a measure of harassment.
The State submitted that the detenue had a grievance against his neighbour, alleging cultivation of ganja and disturbances from late-night parties, and that he had lodged a complaint with Indiranagar Police. The complaint was inquired into and an endorsement was issued on 01 July 2025. Dissatisfied, the detenue allegedly colluded with his mother and counsel to file the habeas corpus petition as a form of retaliation against the police. The State further produced materials showing that the detenue, while being traced in Chennai, abused and assaulted police officers, leading to registration of Crime No.265/2025 in Semmanchari Police Station, Chennai, for offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A pen drive containing video footage of the incident was also submitted.
The petitioner’s counsel, however, filed a memo with an affidavit and wound certificate claiming that the Indiranagar Police had manhandled the detenue and caused grievous injuries. This assertion was countered by the State, which denied all allegations of police misconduct, reiterating that the writ petition was an abuse of process.
The Bench recorded that the petitioner had earlier filed WPHC No.71 of 2025 and withdrawn it, citing erroneous statements. The Court noted: “Subsequently, filed this writ petition by submitting a memorandum before the DGP and IGP, Bengaluru that the detenue was missing from 05.07.2025.” The Judges carefully considered the call records and communications placed on record by the State.
The Court observed: “The call details and other documents placed by the learned SPP II discloses that the detenue was in constant touch with his mother i.e., petitioner and his sister and also with his friend. Further one of his friends namely Mahendra was in contact between 28.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 with the counsel Sri Rajesh Gowda, who has filed this writ petition.”
On the motive, the Court noted: “The report further reveals that in order to take revenge against the Indiranagara Police i.e., respondent No.6 for not registering a case against the neighbour of the detenue based on his complaint making accusation that his neighbour used to cultivate Ganja in the second floor of his house and was causing disturbance by late night parties.”
The Court recorded that the Indiranagar Police had indeed conducted an inquiry and issued an endorsement on 01 July 2025. Dissatisfied with this, the detenue, in collusion with his mother, approached the Court. The Bench concluded: “There was apparently no illegal detention and the writ petition is filed without any bonafides and is an abuse of process of court.”
In its reasoning, the Court stated: “On perusal of these materials, we are of the view that the petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition with an ulterior motive by misusing the liberty granted under the Constitution of the India.” The Judges added: “The filing of this kind of litigation should not be encouraged by this court and the same should be deprecated.” They further observed: “We refrain from making any further comments on the conduct of the parties and the counsel for the petitioner.”
The Court concluded that it was necessary to deter misuse of habeas corpus petitions: “Accordingly, we are of the view that in order to curb frivolous and malicious invocation of habeas corpus to protect the judicial process, it is necessary to impose punitive costs on such litigants.”
“We dismiss this petition by imposing costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) on the petitioner who has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppression of facts.” The Court directed that half of the amount be paid to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the other half to the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
“On failure to deposit the amount by the petitioner as aforesaid, the Registry shall take further steps to initiate contempt against the petitioner.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Rajesh Gowda, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Felix, Advocate for Sri. S. Vijay, Advocate; Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, Special Public Prosecutor-II, along with Sri. Thejesh P, High Court Government Pleader
Case Title: Mrs. Maheshwari M vs. The State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:34253-DB
Case Number: WPHC No. 81 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anu Sivaram, Justice Rajesh Rai K
Comment / Reply From
You May Also Like
