JUDGMENT By order dtd. 31.7.92, it was noted: "In the circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that he does not want to proceed with this petition. It is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. That does not put an end to this matter. Such affidavits being used for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, need to be deprecated. It calls for an enquiry. We direct the District fudge, Indore to hold an enquiry in the matter. Affidavit allegedly sworn by Sumitra baibe sent to the District Judge, Indore retaining photocopy of the same. Record be sent to the District Judge and acknowledge the same. The D. J. shall hold an enquiry and submit his report to this Court by the end of August, 1992." Accordingly an enquiry has been held and report submitted by the Addl. District Judge. An opportunity was given to all concern including the counsel to go through the report and we thought it proper to go through the report before passing any order. The learned ADJ., to whom the enquiry was entrusted, on the basis of evidence recorded by him and particularly that of Sumitrabai, her husband Phulchand and Gudibai, had come to the conclusion that the petition M. P. No. 1921/91, for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the affidavit of Sumitrabai filed alongwith it, were neither instituted at the instance nor sworn by the person. It purports to profess. Sumitrabai has come out with a categorical denial and according to Shri Soni, the Oath Commissioner, Shri Gupta, Advocate was present. It was at his instance that one Laxmansjngh, who had accompanied him (Shri Soni's office) for attestation of the affidavit, had signed as the person identifying the deponant. Laxmansingh has stated in his evidence that he had engaged Shri KP Gupta, the same day as his counsel in a murder case to defend his brother-in-law. It is also on record that Shri Gupta, has moved an application for bail in the High Court on behalf of Laxmansingh's brother-in-law Govind. One Ghasiram was also examined during the enquiry. Accordingly to him it was within his knowledge that Gudibai had eloped with Salim and her brother Dwarka had asked him to get Gudibai released from the rescue home and he had in fact contacted her. Gudibai admits this fact. One Ghasiram was also examined during the enquiry. Accordingly to him it was within his knowledge that Gudibai had eloped with Salim and her brother Dwarka had asked him to get Gudibai released from the rescue home and he had in fact contacted her. Gudibai admits this fact. In view of the over whelming evidence on the record, the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer, that the petition MP 1923/91 filed in the name of Sumitrabai alongwith her affidavit, was not filed by her nor at her instance. Here comes the role of a lawyer. Admittedly Shri KP Gupta, had gone to the rescue home. It is not to suggest that a counsel intend to make a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus, cannot visit orsee a person detained. The question is that on whose instruction was he acting. Even conceding that a counsel can as well file on his own like other citizens, if he had so desired but he claims to be a crusader of champion then why all this bungling; why some to impersonate and thereby pollute fountain head of justice. The role of a lawyer in such a case is a responsible one as an officer of the Court. While the crusading seal to fight for the under privilege may be appreciable but in the instant case a girl having eloped and lodged in a protective home after being recovered was sought to be got released by under hand dealings and method deprivable, such a method being adopted by anyone invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court, cannot be countenanced. It is singularly unfortunate that a counsel who lend his hand and head in procuring such an oath and knowingly making use of the same in invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, u/A 226 of the Constitution, for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. As Shakespeare in Henry II says - " It is a great sin to swear and unto a sin but greater sin to keep a sinful oath. " It would not be out of place here to quote from an article written by Late Hon'ble Mr. Justice A N. Grover -- Supreme Court of India-"The responsibility of the person who moves for a writ is indeed not small. " It would not be out of place here to quote from an article written by Late Hon'ble Mr. Justice A N. Grover -- Supreme Court of India-"The responsibility of the person who moves for a writ is indeed not small. He is invoking an extraordinary jurisdiction which has been granted to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India...............like all specialised activity it requires profound knowledge, industry and skill which must be combined with fairness, frankness and honesty of purpose in order to achieve real success." It is the honesty of purpose which is most important in moving a Writ petition. We are constrained to observe that the learned counsel, who moved the petition failed not only in displaying all purpose but has gone a step further in procuring an affidavit by impersonation and knowingly making use of the same and thus committing a serious crime. We hope that this order will prove to be a pointer to all those over-zealous intending to move the Court for a Writ. But for the unconditional apology expressed and tendered by the counsel, we would have proceeded further, with a view of the apology, allow the matter to rest at that.