VASPARI MALLAIAH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, V. Mallaiah, has filed this Habeas Corpus writ petition ostensibly on the ground that he is in love with respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.4 is being illegal detained by her brother-in-law, respondent No.6. Therefore, he has prayed that respondent No.4 should be produced before this court.

(2.) On 17.09.2019, Mr. Sripathi Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for State, had clearly pointed out that respondent No.4 has already lodged an FIR against the petitioner before the Police Station, Saroornagar, for offence under Sections 354 D, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 43 read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In order to buttress this plea, the learned counsel had also brought to the notice of this Court the FIR, which has been filed by the petitioner himself.

(3.) In the light of the submission made by Mr. Sripathi Santosh Kumar, this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner has abused the process of law, and the process of Court, in order to create evidence in his favour. Therefore, this Court pointedly asked a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether it is true that the said FIR has been registered against the petitioner by the complainant or not? To this query, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has seen the copy of the complainant filed by the respondent No.4. However, the complaint is a fake one. According to the petitioner, he can identify the signature of respondent No.4, and the signature on the complaint is a forged one. Thus, in order to decide whether the complaint is a forged one or genuine one, this Court directed the learned counsel for the State to produce respondent No.4 before this Court today.