Karnataka High Court: In a writ of habeas corpus, filed by a 72-year-old petitioner seeking the production of her missing son, a Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Rajesh Rai K.* JJ., dismissed the petition holding it to be frivolous, an abuse of the court’s process and filed with an ulterior motive to harass the jurisdictional police. The Court imposed punitive cost of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioner.
The petitioner’s son was allegedly missing since 07-07-2025. She had filed a previous writ petition which was later withdrawn on 24-07-2025, on the ground that certain erroneous statements were made in the writ petition by oversight. Subsequently, she filed a complaint with the Director General and Inspector General of Police to trace her son. As the police allegedly failed to trace the detenue, she filed the present writ petition. Upon service of notice, the respondent traced the detenue and produced him before the Court on 07-08-2025.
The Court noted that a report was filed by the learned SPP-II on 18-08-2025, which submitted that the Habeas Corpus petition had been filed with the sole intention to harass the jurisdictional police by the mother of the alleged detenue, who is a proxy set up by the detenue himself. The report further stated that at the time of filing the petition and subsequently, the detenue was in constant touch with the petitioner (his mother), his sister, and a friend, as per the call records.
The Court noted that the report further mentioned that the detenue filed a complaint against his neighbour for cultivating Ganja in the house and causing disturbance through late night parties. Being dissatisfied by the police action the detenue colluding with his mother and others to file this habeas corpus petition.
After perusing the available materials, the Court observed that,
“the petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition with an ulterior motive by misusing the liberty granted under the Constitution of India. The filing of this kind of litigation should not be encouraged by this court and the same should be deprecated.”
The Court further observed 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.”
The Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioner for approaching the Court with unclean hands by suppression of facts. The Court directed that ₹1,00,000 of the costs shall be paid to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the remaining ₹1,00,000 to the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund within two weeks. On failure to deposit the amount, the Registry was directed to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
[Maheshwari M v. State of Karnataka, WPHC No. 81 of 2025, decided on 01-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rajesh Gowda, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Felix, Advocate for S. Vijay, Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II, Thejesh P, HCGP
