ORDER : (G. GIRISH, J.) A habeas corpus writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, as W.P.(Crl) No.201/2024, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.03.2024 imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner, to be paid to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Authority. Complaining that the petitioner had not given instructions and nor signed any pleadings for the institution of the above said habeas corpus writ petition, she has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multiple reliefs including compensation of Rupees One Crore and criminal prosecution against those responsible for the institution of the above said habeas corpus petition. The first respondent is the Advocate who filed the above habeas corpus petition, and the second respondent is the S.H.O of Museum Police Station, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The petitioner who filed W.P.(Crl) No.201/2024 in her capacity as the next friend of the detenues one Rajeev Damodaran, his wife Vijaya Prabha and their autistic daughter aged 7 years, now contends in the present petition that the above said Rajeev Damodaran is her husband and the other two persons, his former wife and child born in that former wife. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed by Rajeev Damodaran, an Assistant Commissioner of Excise Department and his wife Vijaya Prabha working in Income Tax Department as Commissioner, to look after their female child suffering from congenital intellectual disabilities. It is not clear from the present petition about the course of events which led to the conferment of status to the petitioner as the wife of the above said Rajeev Damodaran. Be that as it may, the subject matter of the present petition is that the first respondent instituted W.P.(Crl) No.201/2024 without the instructions from the petitioner making use of the documents containing the forged signatures of the petitioner. The allegation against the second respondent seems to be the inaction of the above officer in taking steps for retrieving the aforesaid Rajeev Damodaran and his daughter despite the complaint of missing preferred by the petitioner. 3. Though notice was duly served on the second respondent, he did not choose to prefer any counter. 4. The allegation against the second respondent seems to be the inaction of the above officer in taking steps for retrieving the aforesaid Rajeev Damodaran and his daughter despite the complaint of missing preferred by the petitioner. 3. Though notice was duly served on the second respondent, he did not choose to prefer any counter. 4. The first respondent filed counter contending as follows: The petitioner had contacted the first respondent through Adv.Mridul John Mathew, a lawyer practising at Thiruvananthapuram, for the institution of petition before this Court in connection with the missing of one Rajeev Damodaran, his wife and his child who were being taken care of by the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner was that Rajeev Damodaran’s brothers were behind the disappearance of that person and his family. As per the advice given by the first respondent, a complaint was preferred before the S.H.O of Police, Museum Police Station in connection with the above matter. The aforesaid complaint was drafted and sent to the petitioner by the first respondent by e-mail. Later on, the habeas corpus petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner as instructed by her, and also as vouched by Adv.Mridul John Mathew. The vakalath and affidavit signed by the petitioner were sent to the first respondent. The above records were not verified by the first respondent in view of the trust which he reposed upon Adv.Mridul John Mathew who had introduced the petitioner to him. The first respondent had received an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of google pay from a lawyer associated with Adv.Mridul John Mathew’s office as the fee for filing the habeas corpus petition. The Division Bench of this Court later on found on the basis of the statement of the Inspector of Museum Police Station that the complaint of missing preferred by the petitioner was false. The Police had reported that Rajeev Damodaran had appeared before the Inspector in person and stated that he was working as Additional Excise Commissioner and that his wife was working as Commissioner in Income Tax Department and that the petitioner had been engaged by them through an agency to take care of their 7 year old child who was having congenital intellectual disabilities. It was also submitted before the Division Bench that the services of the petitioner had been terminated by Rajeev Damodaran in December, 2023 and that thereafter she had been abusing and threatening his family on social media. It was further submitted that the detenues were staying in their present place of residence on their own free will and wish, and there was no illegal confinement. The habeas corpus petition was dismissed imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner under the above circumstances. The judgment so rendered by the Division Bench was communicated to Adv.Mridul John Mathew who had entrusted the brief of the petitioner to the first respondent. The allegation that the habeas corpus petition was filed without the consent and concurrence of the petitioner is totally false. Even during the filing of the petition and afterwards, the petitioner had been contacting the first respondent and enquiring about the status of the said case. None of the offences of forgery and cheating alleged by the petitioner are brought out in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to tarnish the reputation of the first respondent as a lawyer and to shift the liability of costs imposed by the Division Bench of this Court in the habeas corpus petition filed under the instructions of the petitioner. 5. Heard the petitioner who appeared as party-in-person, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the contention of the petitioner herein that she had not authorised the first respondent to institute a habeas corpus petition before this Court, is prima facie false and untrue in view of the document which the petitioner has produced as Ext.P14. Ext.P14 is a complaint which the petitioner has preferred before the Chairman, Bar Council of Kerala alleging professional misconduct on the part of the first respondent. It is categorically stated in the opening portion of the above complaint that the petitioner had filed a case before this Court on 19.02.2024 with CNR No.KLHC 010842362024 and that the first respondent herein was her counsel. It is further stated thereunder that the records of the said case had not been made available to her so far and that the first respondent is not responding to her calls and messages. It is further stated thereunder that the records of the said case had not been made available to her so far and that the first respondent is not responding to her calls and messages. The other contentions in the said complaint are that the first respondent has not been co-operating for filing a review petition in that case. The fact that the petitioner herein had authorised the first respondent to institute the habeas corpus petition before this Court is further revealed from Ext.P15 complaint which she preferred before the Bar Council of Kerala and also from Ext.P18 letter which the petitioner had issued to the first respondent. Thus, it is apparent from the documents produced by the petitioner herself that her contentions in this petition that she had not authorised the first respondent to institute habeas corpus petition before this Court is a blatant lie. The contention of the petitioner that her signatures were forged for the institution of habeas corpus petition before this court cannot be accepted on face value in view of the fact that the documents relied on by the petitioner itself revealed that the first respondent had acted as per the instructions received from her. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the present petition is also one which the petitioner has filed fully knowing the falseness of the averments set forth in it. Though the act of the petitioner resorting to false and frivolous petitions before this Court is liable to punitive consequences including exemplary costs to be ordered against her, I refrain from doing so taking into account the fact that she is a lady who filed this petition as party-in-person. Resultantly, the petition is hereby dismissed.