JUDGMENT 1. 1. Mr. Khan, Government Advocate, submits that a false case has been registered and the children of the petitioner are not in the custody of police. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the children are in the detention of the police authorities and the authorities are not producing them. The second question involved is whether Chunni Lal has committed rape on the petitioner or not. 2. As far as the detention of the Children is concerned, the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City is directed to trace out the children and pro-I duce them. Mr. Khan submits that they will try to search and produce the children by tommorrow. It is not necessary that S P. may himself perform the duties but he can depute any one else for this purpose. As far as second question regarding commission of rape is concerned there is an allegation that the FIR has not been recorded at the Police Station. We consider it proper not to express any opinion in the matter as there is counter affidavit also and the submission that Chunni Lal has not entered the house of the present I petitioner on 29th July, 1985. Whenever the FIR is lodged it is the duty of the police officers to record the FIR and to investigate the matter. The SHO I Police Station, Vishwakarma, Jhotwara, is directed to record the FIR which may be lodged by the present petitioner and to investigate the matter. after investigation, the investigating agency finds that the case is made out then they should submit charge sheet against Chunni Lal. In case it is found that the false information report has been lodged, the investigating agency can prosecute the complainant or the informant under section 182 IPC. The recording of the FIR is mandatory and as such we direct that the FIR may ' be recorded. 3. Put up tomorrow for further orders. 4. A copy of this order may be supplied to the Government Advocate for necessary action in the matter. 12-8-1985. 1. Sushri Kavita, aged 15 years (Approx) Sunita aged about 10 years, Geeta aged about 5 years and Sunil aged about 11/2 years were produced today (A.N.) at about 3.30 P.M. in the court by Sari Chunni Lal, respondent No. 3. A copy of this order may be supplied to the Government Advocate for necessary action in the matter. 12-8-1985. 1. Sushri Kavita, aged 15 years (Approx) Sunita aged about 10 years, Geeta aged about 5 years and Sunil aged about 11/2 years were produced today (A.N.) at about 3.30 P.M. in the court by Sari Chunni Lal, respondent No. 3. An application has also been moved by him that they were found in the custody of Smt. Sua wife of Harchanda, Bawari. 2. We took the assistance of Shri P.D. Mathur, Advocate, to ascertain some-facts from the children produced. Smt. Sua was also present in the court with her husband. The version given by Smt. Sua and the children is not consistent in some parts. Mst. Kavita has stated that she and her sisters are laving at their residence and are getting, assistance of the neighbours. But, she has denied that she is in the custody of Smt. Sua. She has stated that Sua is her Mami and not Mosi, whereas in the court Sun stated that she is their Mosi. 5. Apart from that we consider the interest of the children named above and, direct they may be sent to the Children Home immediately and they may be produced tomorrow as the petitioner and her counsel who were present in the court in morning are not present at present. It is further directed that Smt. Sua, her husband or any of the police officers should not not be allowed to see the children in the Children's Home and the in charge of the Children's Home is directed see the Children are dealt with properly in accordance with law. 13-8-1985. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the petitioner in person who, is present in tilt court today. 2. An enquiry was made by us yesterday and the children were interrogated by us and they have replied that they have never been taken to the police station. They have also stated that they were at their residence and no one has taken away them from their residence. It was also stated that they are getting assistance of neighbours. 3. We consider it proper that the oral order should be passed in the presence of the counsel for the parties. 4. They have also stated that they were at their residence and no one has taken away them from their residence. It was also stated that they are getting assistance of neighbours. 3. We consider it proper that the oral order should be passed in the presence of the counsel for the parties. 4. The special powers under the Habeas Corpus petition exists only for the extra ordinary jurisdiction, when we find there is wrongful confinement and immediate order arc necessary for the release of the person. The misuse of Habeas Corpus proceedings leads to injustice. There is an allegation against the petitioner that she is hafonring criminal Prakash, who is wanted by the police in number of bulgaries. 5. We would not like to express any opinion about the criminal cases but we are satisfied that this habeas corpus has not been filed with bonafide intention. The rule is therefore, discharged. The children are set at liberty and they may be allowed to go at a place wherever they like. However, we consider it proper to issue warning to the petitioner about her conduct. Writ allowed. *******