The High Court in Karnataka imposed a 72 -year -old fine 2 Lakh to submit the Habeas Corpus petition by falsely depicting that her son was missing and that the city police could not act correctly at her complaint to follow him.
The court found that the petitioner, Maleshwari M., an Indianagar resident, was a representative of her “missing” son Kriplani M. to harass the Police Indranagar.
While she observed that the petition was filed with a side motive of abuse of freedom granted according to the Constitution, the division bench that includes judge Anu Sivaraman and the judiciary Rajesh Rai K.
She gained her first proposal for illegal detention of her son and later filed a current proposal to claim that despite the submission of the complaint to the Chief of the State Police, the police did not follow him. It was also argued that the Police Indianagar had previously held their son, resulting in injury.
After the High Court ordered the police to report on her petition, Sleuths from the Koramangala police station traced his son to the hotel in Chennai and created him in court.
The police also stated that the records of call details (CDR) pointed out that it was Mr. Kriplani, who was behind the petition through their mother. The police said he was in contact, by phone, with his mother, sister and friend, who was in contact with the advocate who handed the current petition.
Police Korangala also reported the court that Mr. Kriples abused them when they went to the hotel and asked him to appear before the High Court, and they helped the Semmancher police station in Chennai.
Mr. Kriples also allegedly attacked a police officer at the Semmancheri station when they went to the hotel to ensure its production before the Karnataka High Court, and in this respect the first information report was registered against him, the police reported the court by creating video shots of Mr. Kriplani in the hotel.
However, the bench abstained from other comments on the implementation of the parties and advocates of the petitioner and at the same time warned the contempt for court proceedings if the fine was not paid in the specified period.
Published – September 2025 20:21 IS IS
