The court held that fabricating evidence to support a habeas corpus petition is a serious offense and that the petitioner should be held liable for damages for causing inconvenience and reputational damage to the person alleged to be illegally detained.

( 1 ) THIS habeas corpus petition has ultimately failed; Shyam Sunder Pathak as petitioner claims that Kulvinder Kaur and he are married. He further states that Kulvinder Kaur has been illegally detained by Jasbir Singh, her father and Darbara Singh, her brother. From the habeas corpus petition it appears that Shyam Sunder Pathak or Kulvinder Kaur and her parents were not strangers to him. He contends that he worked with the firm Mehrotra Udyog, which manufactures Pressure Cookers and this manufacturing concern is owned by the opposite parties. He talks of a love affair and elopement and a marriage. Thereafter, he says that Kulvinder Kaur continues in illegal detention and confinement of her parents. On these facts warrants were issued on this habeas corpus petition requiring the corpus of Kulvinder Kaur to be produced before the Court by Jasbir Singh, her father and her brother, Darbara Singh.

( 2 ) ON the date fixed Kulvinder Kaur appeared having been produced by the opposite parties. A counter affidavit was filed by her father. This was replied by a rejoinder affidavit. By the time the counter affidavit was brought on record the case was taking another turn. Par from being a major Kulvinder Kaur was only a minor of 14 years. A certificate from the school was filed placing her ago on record. She is studying in class IX. A First Information Report had been filed on the disappearance of Kulvinder Kaur. It was registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the indian Penal Code, in effect, on an allegation of kidnapping and abduction. Her father denied that there was any marriage or that she had written letters, which are on record.

( 3 ) KULVINDER Kaur expressed her desire that she would like to give her statement to the Court, in chambers. This proposition was put at the Bar in open Court. Counsel for the parties agreed. Kulvinder Kaur made her statement in chambers. She denied that she had been married. She stated that the marriage certificate was incorrect as she has never been to Varanasi. She denied that the love letters which were appended to the petition had been written by her.

( 4 ) THE Court called Counsel for the parties and their clients and in their presence required kulvinder Kaur to write her name in a running handwriting continuously five times. What came out is that the signatures of Kulvinder Kaur do not tally with the letters which are appended to the petition. Thus, a doubt has arisen whether Kulvinder Kaur was the signatory of the marriage certificate, of a marriage being performed at a Mandir in Varanasi, where she has not been, or written letters appended to the habeas corpus petition.

( 5 ) THE question now only is of an investigation and subsequent trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a marriage certificate which contains Kulvinder Kaurs signature.

( 6 ) THE very foundation of this habeas corpus petition were, thus, shaken, and the net result is that a girl, who was otherwise 14 years of age was summoned to the Bar of this Court with a stigma that there was a marriage upon her head. The options before the Court are : To direct the Senior superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, to investigate and collect all the possible evidence and file such report for an appropriate proceedings, and the signature given by Kulvinder Kaur to this court will become a part of the investigation. Further, take action on the possibility that the material was manufactured for evidence to be utilised in judicial proceedings for taking out warrants on this habeas corpus petition. This would be a crime under Chepter XI of the Indian penal Code. The Court had cautioned learned Counsel for the petitioner that this may lead to a serious situation as once investigation begins upon a First Information Report, which had been filed, there would be another investigation on the veracity of the document produced before this court.

( 7 ) THE Court had given an opportunity on two aspects to the petitioner : (a) w