<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on a Bengaluru resident for filing a writ petition of habeas corpus with "ulterior motive" and "without any bonafides" to harass the police.</p>.<p>The court dismissed the petition after a police report revealed the "missing" person was in constant touch with his family.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Maheshwari M, had approached the court seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce her son, Kriplani M, whom she claimed had been missing since July 7. This was her second such petition, with the first having been withdrawn earlier on the grounds of "erroneous statements".</p>.<p>However, upon investigation, the police traced Kriplani to a hotel in Chennai on August 5 and produced him before the court. The subsequent report exposed a detailed timeline of events, supported by Call Detail Record (CDR). The report showed that Kriplani was in constant contact with his mother (the petitioner), his sister, and a friend.</p>.Karnataka HC dismisses appeal seeking compensation for land acquired in 1971.<p>The police report further revealed that the petition was not filed out of genuine concern, but rather as an act of personal vengeance against the Indiranagar police.</p>.<p>The motive stemmed from a previous complaint by Kriplani against his neighbour, whom he accused of cultivating ganja. The Indiranagar police, after due inquiry, had issued an endorsement, which had apparently dissatisfied the detenue.</p>.<p>The police also stated that Kriplani had assaulted a police officer in Chennai who was attempting to produce him before the high court. An FIR was registered against him at the Semmancheri police station in Chennai.</p>.<p>The court dismissed the petition and imposed the costs of Rs 2 lakh on the petitioner. The amount has been directed to be paid within two weeks, with Rs 1 lakh to be deposited with the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the remaining Rs 1 lakh to the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund. The court also warned that failure to deposit the amount would result in contempt proceedings.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on a Bengaluru resident for filing a writ petition of habeas corpus with "ulterior motive" and "without any bonafides" to harass the police.</p>.<p>The court dismissed the petition after a police report revealed the "missing" person was in constant touch with his family.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Maheshwari M, had approached the court seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce her son, Kriplani M, whom she claimed had been missing since July 7. This was her second such petition, with the first having been withdrawn earlier on the grounds of "erroneous statements".</p>.<p>However, upon investigation, the police traced Kriplani to a hotel in Chennai on August 5 and produced him before the court. The subsequent report exposed a detailed timeline of events, supported by Call Detail Record (CDR). The report showed that Kriplani was in constant contact with his mother (the petitioner), his sister, and a friend.</p>.Karnataka HC dismisses appeal seeking compensation for land acquired in 1971.<p>The police report further revealed that the petition was not filed out of genuine concern, but rather as an act of personal vengeance against the Indiranagar police.</p>.<p>The motive stemmed from a previous complaint by Kriplani against his neighbour, whom he accused of cultivating ganja. The Indiranagar police, after due inquiry, had issued an endorsement, which had apparently dissatisfied the detenue.</p>.<p>The police also stated that Kriplani had assaulted a police officer in Chennai who was attempting to produce him before the high court. An FIR was registered against him at the Semmancheri police station in Chennai.</p>.<p>The court dismissed the petition and imposed the costs of Rs 2 lakh on the petitioner. The amount has been directed to be paid within two weeks, with Rs 1 lakh to be deposited with the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the remaining Rs 1 lakh to the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund. The court also warned that failure to deposit the amount would result in contempt proceedings.</p>