JUDGMENT - V.H. BHAIRAVIA, J. :---Having been dissatisfied with the functioning of the Police Department of Greater Bombay, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court and invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamous and habeas corpus together against the respondent-State in the matter of alleged abduction of his wife by respondents Nos. 4 to 6. It would be necessary to give here the synopsis, the petitioner himself has given in this petition which are liable to be dismissed in our judgment as absolutely false and fabricated :- SYNOPSIS Sr. No. Description Exh. Remarks 1. This petition is for a direction to respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forthwith locate and trace the petitioners wife Smt. Sherbanoo Motiwala and to produce her in this Honourable Court; for mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forthwith seek revocation of the bail granted to the4th, 5th and 6th respondents and to take the said respondents into custody and hold them for investigations until they disclose the where abouts of the petitioners wife Smt.Sherbanoo Motiwala and restore her to the petitioner; for mandamus directing the respondents to immediately withdraw the investi- gation in respect of C.R. 103 of 1992 regarding the abduction of the petitioners wife from Cuffe Parade Police Station and to entrust the same to the Central Bureau of Investigation with a further direction that the Central Bureau of Investigation shall expeditiously investigate the matter and initiate proceedings against all persons responsible; for a further mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to issue notices and bulletins to all Police Stations throughout the State of Maharashtra as well as in all neighbouring States to secure information and details regarding the present whereabouts of the petitioners abducted wife Smt. Sherbanoo Motiwala and to take all steps to secure her expeditious release. 2. Rs. 95,000/- were stolen from the cupboard of the petitioners sister by respondents 4 and 5 at the best of respondent No. 6 on 28-3-1991. Accordingly a complaint was lodged, but nothing was done in the matter. Ultimately a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 874 of 1991 was filed and by an order dated 5-12-1991 this Honourable Court directed the D.C.B. C.I.D., Bombay to investigate the matter and register the case against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 3. Accordingly a complaint was lodged, but nothing was done in the matter. Ultimately a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 874 of 1991 was filed and by an order dated 5-12-1991 this Honourable Court directed the D.C.B. C.I.D., Bombay to investigate the matter and register the case against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 3. In retaliation to the above order of this Honble Court dated 5-12-1991, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 hatched a criminal conspiracy to abduct the petitioners wife. 4. Pursuant to the above conspiracy petitioners wife was abducted on the afternoon at about 3.20 p.m. on 5-3-1992. Since then till date petitioners wife Smt. Sherbanoo is not traced. 5. At that time petitioner was by the side of his wife. There is an eye witness to the said abduction namely Shri Abdul H. Chaudhary, a practising Advocate. There were two other eye witnesses B.W. Shirsat and Kumari A.B. Shirsat. Together with the said eye-witnesses the petitioner lodged a complaint at about 4.20 p.m. on 5-3-1992 at the Cuffe Parade Police Station and their statements were recorded vide C.R. No. 103 of 1992. However, the police authorities did nothing in the matter. 6. In the meantime respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 applied for anticipatory bail to the Sessions Court, Bombay. However, the Sessions Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to them, by his order dated 3-4-1992. "A" 7. However, despite the above the police authorities took steps in the matter till 14-4-1992. The police authorities colluded with the accused persons by not placing the correct facts before the Court in the proceedings in which the petitioner was not a party. In the circum- stances, anticipatory bail was granted by this Honble Court on 14-4-1992. "B" 8. The petitioner was therefore, constrained to file a writ petition being W.P. No. 372 of 1992. However their Lordships Mr. Justice Kurdukar and Mr. Justice Sambre were pleased to reject the said petition by their order dated 15-6-1992. "C" 9. In the circumstances the petitioner was constrained to move the Honble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2618 of 1992. However, while rejecting the same, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court directed the police authorities of Bombay to take active steps to locate the petitioners abducted wife by their order dated 16-10-1992. "D" 10. "C" 9. In the circumstances the petitioner was constrained to move the Honble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2618 of 1992. However, while rejecting the same, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court directed the police authorities of Bombay to take active steps to locate the petitioners abducted wife by their order dated 16-10-1992. "D" 10. After the said order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner through his Advocate addressed a letter dated 6-11-1992 to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State and the 2nd respondent herein. The basic facts and circumstances were recited. After some days the petitioners advocate received communication for furnishing information in the matter. "E" 11. Pursuant to the above the petitioner alongwith his Advocate attended the office of the Commissioner of Police as also the office of Missing Persons Bureau and furnished all information which was sought, as also other relevant information. However, inspite of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court the Commissioner of Police Shri. Bapat did nothing in the matter. "E" 12. Having waited for sufficient long time, petitioner through his Advocate addressed letter dtd. 15-12- 1992 to the 2nd respondent and then a reminder dated 6-1-1993 "F" However, there was no response. "G" 13. Despite the above, petitioners wife is not traced till date and the police authorities have done nothing in the matter. 14. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioner is constrained to move this Honourable Court again for the reliefs prayed for in the petition. 2. In pursuance to the allegations made in the petition, this Court took a very serious view in the matter and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay was directed to forthwith hand over the investigation to the Senior and experienced police officer of D.C.B., C.I.D. by the order of this Court (Coram: M.L. Pendse M.F. Saldanha, JJ.), dated 18th October, 1993. It was further directed to make report to the Court on/or before 8th November, 1993. However, in pursuance to the said order dated 18th October, 1993, the Investigating Officer Shri R.D. Dhoble, Inspector of Police, D.C.B., C.I.D. Unit-I, Bombay, submitted a report on 8-11-1993 stating what steps they had taken for tracing out the missing lady Smt. Sherbanoo, the wife of the petitioner and sought extension of time of 30 days. However, in pursuance to the said order dated 18th October, 1993, the Investigating Officer Shri R.D. Dhoble, Inspector of Police, D.C.B., C.I.D. Unit-I, Bombay, submitted a report on 8-11-1993 stating what steps they had taken for tracing out the missing lady Smt. Sherbanoo, the wife of the petitioner and sought extension of time of 30 days. It also reveals from the record that in pursuance of the directions given by the Court (A.C. Agarwal D.K. Trivedi, JJ.) Shri S.M. Sayyed, Dy. Commissioner of Police (E.O.), Crime Branch, Bombay, in his report dated 8th April, 1994, submitted to the Court stated that what steps being taken by the Investigating Agency for tracing out the wife of the petitioner. Despite sincere efforts, they could not trace out the alleged missing lady and therefore, further one month time was sought and therefore, one month time was granted. It also reveals from the record that Mr. S.M. Sayyed, Dy. Commissioner of Police (E.O.), Crime Branch, Bombay, submitted his further report of progress in investigation of tracing out the alleged abducted lady and requested further extension of time on 5th May, 1994 and ultimately, on 20th July, 1994, Shri Shrikant B. Lomate, Senior Inspector of Police, D.C.B., C.I.D., Unit-I, Bombay comes with an affidavit to the Court and stated : "that the petitioner had himself caused the "disappearance" of his own wife and he would probably do so again if she was given into his custody." In our view, this is a crucial affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. In para 10 of his affidavit, it is stated that : Pursuance to the direction of Division Bench (Coram : Agarwal Trivedi, JJ.) team of Officers led by Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri S.M. Sayed was formed, consisting of four Inspectors of Police, two Asstt. Inspectors of Police, Four Sub-Inspectors of Police, and 8 other Police personnal. This team was under the direct supervision of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Shri M.N. Singh and the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Shri D. Shivanandan. This team made strenuous efforts to trace the missing abducted lady. The team personally checked the following places. (a) Hospitals .. 83 (b) Guest House .. 86 (c) Hotels .. 85 (d) Mosques .. 77 (e) Trust Kabrastan .. 15 these places were checked in the City of Bombay alone. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Shri D. Shivanandan. This team made strenuous efforts to trace the missing abducted lady. The team personally checked the following places. (a) Hospitals .. 83 (b) Guest House .. 86 (c) Hotels .. 85 (d) Mosques .. 77 (e) Trust Kabrastan .. 15 these places were checked in the City of Bombay alone. Outside Bombay also enquries were made at Pune, Thane, New Bombay, Khed Shivapur, Lonawala-Khandala, Deolali, Ajmer Sherif (Rajasthan) and also in Daman. Telephone enquiries were also made at Kuwait. I creave leave to refer to and rely on the case diaries and relevant records maintained of our enquiries and investigation when produced if necessary. Hence a large amount of man power, time as well as Government funds and administrative machinery has been utilised in making efforts to trace the allegedly abducted lady". Further, in para 11 of his affidavit, he has stated that :- "Our suspicions were aroused that the petitioner was probably concealing his own wife and trying to grossly misuse the investigation machinery for the purpose of harassing these respondents and working out his private vendetta against them. Hence the petitioners movement were kept under watch. These efforts paid off and it was disclosed that the petitioner was often visiting Kasara in District Thane. A watch was therefore maintained through Police source at Kasara.... That the missing lady and the petitioner were staying together in Room No. RB-I/9 in the said Railway Quarters at Kasara as Paying Guest." Further in para 12, it is stated that : ".........Early in the morning on 18-7-1994 with the assistance of the Local Police at Kasara, as checked the aforesaid Room No. RB I/9, in the presence of two independent witnesses of the locality. ..... the petitioner and his wife were found together alongwith household articles and clothes." Thus, the alleged abducted wife of the petitioner was traced out and brought to the Police Station, Kasara and statements of local persons were recorded who identified the missing lady as Auntie. The affidavits of persons in whose houses Smt. Sherbanoo had stayed during one and half year at Kasara are also produced by the police in the Court. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner and his wife denied their staying at Kasara by filing affidavits on 18th August, 1994. The affidavits of persons in whose houses Smt. Sherbanoo had stayed during one and half year at Kasara are also produced by the police in the Court. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner and his wife denied their staying at Kasara by filing affidavits on 18th August, 1994. With a view to find out the truth, the Court directed the Public Prosecutor to keep present the dependents viz. Mr. Vasant Baburao Dudhsagare and Shaikh Mohd. Iqbal of Kasara village in whose houses Smt. Sherbanoo had stayed. Accordingly, both these gentlemen entered into the witness box in this Court and their deposition was recorded. The learned Counsel Mr. C.U. Singh, appearing for the petitioner had cross-examined them. Their deposition is on record. After recording the evidence of these two persons, the petitioner and his wife Smt. Sherbanoo were asked by the Court to enter into the witness box but they refused to give evidence in the Court. The learned Counsel Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioner is protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the petitioner and his wife were not entered into the witness box. However, the learned Counsel Mr. C.U. Singh appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the evidence of these witnesses (Mr. Vasant Baburao Dudhsagare and Shaikh Mohd. Iqbal) is suffering from infirmities and discrepancies, as regards the arrival of Smt. Sherbanoo at their respective houses and payment of rent and therefore, it should not be accepted. The evidence of these two witnesses came to be recorded by the Court with a view to dissatisfy the averments made by them in the affidavits filed by them in the Court. We found that they are Government employees and we found them reliable and truthful witnesses. Their evidence has fully corroborated the statements of Investigating Officer Shri Shrikant B. Lomate. 3. It is an allegation of the petitioner in the petition that though the wife of the petitioner had been abducted by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in the broad day light and a complaint had lodged by the petitioner against them, they could not trace out his wife. From the affidavit of the Investigating Officer Mr. Shrikant B. Lomate and the evidence of Vasant Baburao Dudhsagare and Shaikh Mohd. Iqbal led us to believe that the story of abduction by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in the broad day light and a complaint had lodged by the petitioner against them, they could not trace out his wife. From the affidavit of the Investigating Officer Mr. Shrikant B. Lomate and the evidence of Vasant Baburao Dudhsagare and Shaikh Mohd. Iqbal led us to believe that the story of abduction by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 found to be false and fabricated, masterminded by the petitioner himself with a view to harass the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 and to blame the police for failure in tracing out his alleged abducted wife for more than 2½ years. It also reveals from the record that the petitioner seems to be Court Bird, he is in habit of filing false cases in the Court against his own relatives and disappearing at the time of hearing of the cases resulted into dismissal of such cases. Copies of the orders passed in such cases are produced by the prosecution in this case. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that in some causes, the order of B Summary was passed against the petitioner. 4. Apart from this, the alleged abduction of his wife on 5-3-1992 in broad day light at about 3 p.m. from the main read of Oval Maidan near the Police Station alleged to have been witnessed by many people and immediately complaint was lodged against respondents Nos. 4 to 6 by the petitioner with Cuffe Parade Police Station, Bombay. Statements of the alleged eye witnesses to the incident of abduction viz. Advocate Shri A.H. Choudhary (at page 116), Shri Anil Tanaji Arole (at page 99) and Mr. Bhaskar Waman Shirsat (at page 93) who had given their statements to police have been retracted by them in their subsequent affidavits in the Court stating that they did not see any incident of abduction, as alleged by the petitioner but they were induced to oblige the petitioner. They have admitted in their affidavits that it was a plan to rob the respondents Nos. 4 to 6. 5. We do not find any reason for not believing these witnesses who have denied they witnessed to the incident of abduction by filing affidavits in this Court. The petitioner on receiving alleged chit, straight-way went to Sherbanoo. They have admitted in their affidavits that it was a plan to rob the respondents Nos. 4 to 6. 5. We do not find any reason for not believing these witnesses who have denied they witnessed to the incident of abduction by filing affidavits in this Court. The petitioner on receiving alleged chit, straight-way went to Sherbanoo. The petitioners wife Smt. Sherbanoo did not inform the police at Kasara about her abduction though she was free to move in the town. The affidavit of the Investigating Officer Shri Shrikant B. Lomate giving all details of his efforts for searching out Smt. Sherbanoo for about more than 2 years have been failed in searching out said Smt. Sherbanoo. It is the stigma on the part of the Police Department and we believe that the police department should not carry their stigma furthermore in their career of service. 6. It is pertinent to note that after having come to know the where abouts of the wife through unknown persons (Mr. Kulkarni), he did not inform the police but straight-way went to Kasara and met his wife were she was staying. The petitioner has not produced the alleged chit, nor Smt. Sharbanoo has informed the police about her abduction though she was freely moving in the town. This conduct of the petitioner and his wife losses all credibilities of their truthfulness and therefore, we are not impressed with the petition and it deserves to be dismissed as false and fabricated. 7. In the result, rule is discharged with costs. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. D.U. Mirajkar has vehemently submitted that the exemplary cost may be imposed upon the petitioner for abuse of process of the Court and he should also be directed to prosecute for the offence punishable under sections 391, 399 and 211 I.P.C. and also under section 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission about what action should be taken against the petitioner who files false and fabricated petition. (1983 Supreme Court Cases, 311)1, (Subhash Kumar v. State att Bihar and others)2, A.I.R. 1991, Supreme Court, 420, (The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Official Liquidator H.G. Calcutta with M/s. Hooghli Mills Ltd. v. The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India)3, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1672. (1983 Supreme Court Cases, 311)1, (Subhash Kumar v. State att Bihar and others)2, A.I.R. 1991, Supreme Court, 420, (The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Official Liquidator H.G. Calcutta with M/s. Hooghli Mills Ltd. v. The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India)3, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1672. (1992 Volume - V, Judgment Today, page 1)4. 8. As against this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singh has also submitted that the petitioner is protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot direct for prosecution under the purview of offence punishable under the Penal Code. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singh for the simple reason that this is the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and a writ of habeas corpus sought in and ultimately, Court found that the facts stated in the petition on oath are fabricated and false. It amounts the abuse of process, criminal contempt of Court and the petitioner who has made a false statement on oath is also liable for the prosecution under the appropriate provision of I.P.C. According to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Mirajkar, this offence falls under sections 191, 193 read with section 199 I.P.C. Now, the question is that, is it a fit case for taking a serious view in the matter? In view of the above observations and in view of the above cited observations of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, this is a case where we should not allow the litigant to put the High Court in motion in this manner. The petitioner has deliberately supressed something and under the pretext of abduction, he successfully obtained the order from this Court. The Court directed the investigating agency to trace out the missing lady. Not only that but on the allegations of the petitioner, the Court has directed to entrust the investigation to other agency and in pursuance to that orders, the efforts were made by the police department as stated in their affidavits. The Court directed the investigating agency to trace out the missing lady. Not only that but on the allegations of the petitioner, the Court has directed to entrust the investigation to other agency and in pursuance to that orders, the efforts were made by the police department as stated in their affidavits. In their affidavits, they have pointed out what sort of money they have spent, what sort of search they have done and what sort of manpower they have employed and what sort of efforts they have made at the cost of other serious important effences which were to be investigated. The Judges of this Court have also been kept in dark and the petitioner successfully supressed the true facts from this Court. This is a serious offence falls under Criminal Contempt of Court. As regards the Government has also undergone heavy costs. The respondents have been tortured for nearly two years and also put under high tension. Having regard to the totality of this fabricated proceedings, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 20,000. Further, he is directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- within four weeks in this Court. Out of the deposited amount, Rs. 10,000 to be paid to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 and Rs. 10,000/- to be credited in the Government treasury. So far as the prosecution under the Penal Code is concerned, the Registrar, High Court is directed to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 191 r/w section 193 and section 199 I.P.C. in the competent Court. Petitioner be also issued notice under section 2(c) r/w. section 12 of the Criminal Contempt of Court Act. Mr. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has requested for staying the operation of this order for six weeks. Request is granted. *****