Supreme Court Considers Appeal Against High Court's Rs. 50 Lakh Cost and CBI Probe in Habeas Corpus Case Involving Allegations of Illegal Detention and Political Mudslinging. High Court Had Found the Petition an Abuse of Process, Imposed Costs, and Directed CBI Investigation Against the Petitioner.

Criminal appellate jurisdiction – appeal against a High Court order in a habeas corpus writ petition alleging illegal detention of three persons by a Member of Parliament, seeking quashing of costs and CBI direction.

Appellant sought quashing of the High Court order that imposed Rs. 50 lakh costs and directed CBI registration of a criminal case, and that had dismissed his habeas corpus petition.

Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 111 of 2011 as next friend of three persons, alleging they were illegally detained and not seen since 2007. The High Court dismissed the petition with heavy costs and suo moto directions, leading to this appeal.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition No. 111/2011 with cost of Rs. 50 lakh, directed CBI to register a case against the appellant, and ordered payment to the alleged detenues and a politician as well as a reward to the DGP. An earlier writ petition No. 3719/2009 filed by another person on similar facts was also dismissed by the same High Court.

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to transfer and dismiss Writ Petition No. 111/2011 without notice and proper hearing, violating natural justice. Whether the imposition of Rs. 50 lakh cost was excessive and unjust, disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Whether the direction to the CBI to register a case against the appellant was warranted on the merits and within the High Court's powers. Whether Writ Petition No. 111/2011 was an abuse of the process of the court, filed mala fide with false and scandalous allegations. Whether the High Court could suo moto direct a reward of Rs. 5 lakh to the Director General of Police. Whether the appellant had standing as next friend and whether the petition satisfied the requirements of a habeas corpus petition.

Appellant: The High Court lacked jurisdiction as the writ petition was not transferred by the Chief Justice; the court acted in undue haste without following procedure; the order was passed without notice and hearing; the costs and CBI direction are unjust and disproportionate. State of U.P.: The petition was an abuse of process; the appellant did not approach with clean hands; the petition was mala fide and contradictory; the appellant had no standing as next friend; the basic ingredients of habeas corpus were not met; res judicata applied due to suppression of earlier writ dismissal. Respondent No.6 (Rahul Gandhi): The petition was motivated political mudslinging; the appellant was a stranger with no knowledge; the petition aimed to hurt reputation; no case of private detention was made out. Respondent No.7 (CBI): Preliminary investigation found the allegations false; the persons and addresses were fictitious; key witness Balram Singh denied the allegations; the suspected websites were hosted outside India and IP addresses could not be traced; the appellant had no personal knowledge and the litigation was externally funded. Respondent No.8 (Gajendra Pal Singh): Writ Petition No. 125/2011 was filed bona fide to save reputations; the appellant's petition was based on false affidavit and abuse of process, committing perjury.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

the writ petition No.111 (H/C) of 2011 was filed on the instructions of Kishor Samrite (who has also sworn the affidavit in support of the writ petition) which contained wild allegations/insinuation against Shri Rahul Gandhi and questions the virtue and modesty of a young girl of 22 years Km. Kirti Singh we dismiss this writ petition with a cost of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty lacs) we also direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, to register case against Kishor Samrite, the websites referred to in Writ Petition No.111 (H/C) of 2011 and all other persons who are found involved in the plot the petition was mala fide and even the affidavit of the appellant was not in conformity with the prescribed procedure it was not a case of private detention and the petition filed by the appellant was not in conformity with the rules the persons and the addresses given in the petition were found to be fictitious and non-existent

Initially, Ram Prakash Shukla filed Writ Petition No. 3719/2009 in Allahabad High Court on similar allegations of rape and illegal detention; it was dismissed. The appellant Kishore Samrite filed Writ Petition No. 111/2011 as next friend of three persons, alleging they were illegally detained by Respondent No.6 (Rahul Gandhi) and not seen since 4.1.2007. Respondent No.8 Gajendra Pal Singh filed Writ Petition No. 125/2011 seeking production of the alleged detenues and to save their reputations. The High Court clubbed both petitions and after hearing, passed the impugned order on 7.3.2011, dismissing No.111/2011 with cost of Rs.50 lakh, directing payment to the alleged detenues and Rahul Gandhi, a reward of Rs.5 lakh to the DGP, and ordering CBI investigation. Aggrieved, Kishore Samrite appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment.

• Constitution of India: Article 21
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120B, 181, 191, 211, 469, 499, 500