Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost on Petitioner for Filing Frivolous Habeas Corpus Petition

The High Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in which the petitioner had claimed that her son had been missing since early July 2025. The police subsequently traced the individual in Chennai and produced him before the Court, following which it came to light that the petition was filed to settle personal scores against neighbours and local police.

A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaramana and Justice Rajesh Rai K observed that “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 filing of this kind of litigation should not be encouraged by this court and the same should be deprecated."

Advocate Rajesh Gowda appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor Vijaykumar Majage, assisted by Advocate Thejesh P, represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner had initially filed a habeas corpus plea in July 2025, alleging that her son was missing, but later withdrew it, citing erroneous statements. Subsequently, she submitted a complaint to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bengaluru, before again approaching the High Court.

During the hearing of the second petition, police produced the petitioner's son before the Court and submitted call detail records showing that he had been in constant contact with his mother, sister, and friends during the period he was claimed to be missing. The records also revealed that one of his friends had contacted the petitioner’s counsel around the time the petition was filed.

The prosecution argued that the plea was a proxy move by the petitioner’s son himself to target the Police, who had earlier declined to act on his complaint against a neighbour. It was further submitted that he had assaulted a police officer in Chennai when attempts were made to bring him before the Court.

The petitioner, however, alleged that her son had been manhandled by the police, submitting a wound certificate to substantiate the claim. This assertion was denied by the State, which produced an FIR and video evidence of the incident in Chennai to contradict the allegation.

Court’s Observations

While reviewing the material on record, the Bench held that the habeas corpus plea was filed with "ulterior motives" and that the petitioner had approached the court with "unclean hands by suppression of facts". It was also observed that the petitioner had suppressed facts and colluded with her son to misuse the writ remedy against the police.

Underscoring the need to curb frivolous and malicious invocation of habeas corpus to protect the judicial process, the Court deemed it is necessary to impose punitive costs on such litigants.

“The filing of this kind of litigation should not be encouraged by this court and the same should be deprecated. We refrain from making any further comments on the conduct of the parties and the counsel for the petitioner. 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”, the Court concluded.

Conclusion

Dismissing the habeas corpus petition, the High Court imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner, directing that ₹1 lakh be paid to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and another ₹1 lakh to the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund.

Cause Title: Maheshwari M v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:34253-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Adv. Rajesh Gowda

Respondents: Sr. PP Vijaykumar Majage with Adv. Thejesh P

Click here to read/download Judgment