Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, M.S. Karnik, JJ.
Priyanka Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition Stamp No. 2712 of 2020
Decided On : 15-02-2021
Key Points: - A second FIR may be registered when it pertains to different accusations arising from the same incident, and counter complaints are permissible where rival versions exist (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court may exercise powers under Article 226 and Section 482 to quash an FIR only in the rarest of rare cases, such as where allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence or the proceeding is mala fide (!) (!) (!) . - Allegations in an FIR must prima facie disclose a cognizable offence; mere suspicion or vague allegations against an individual are insufficient to deny quashing (!) (!) (!) . - Registration of an FIR requires compliance with statutory provisions, including preliminary enquiry and expert opinion where applicable, and violations of such provisions can support petitions for quashing (!) (!) (!) . - The court must examine whether the allegations, even if accepted, clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying investigation and whether specific overt acts are attributable to the accused (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the fir registration. (Para 4 , 19) |
| 2. arguments against the validity of the fir. (Para 5 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on the fir's legitimacy. (Para 16 , 21 , 22 , 37) |
| 4. court's ruling on the applicability of competing firs. (Para 27 , 42) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition regarding one petitioner. (Para 43) |
JUDGMENT
M.S. Karnik, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent.
2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC) takes an exception to the FIR no. 576 of 2020 registered at Bandra police station, Mumbai for offences punishable under Section 420 , 464, 465, 466, 474, 468, 306, 120B, read with 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 8 (C) , 21, 22A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short' NDPS Act').
3. The Petitioners pray for quashing of the FIR on the following set of facts.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that they suffered untimely and unfortunate demise of their brother Shri Sushant Singh Rajput on 14/6/2020. Petitioner No.1 is a lawyer. Petitioner No.2 is an ex-cricketer had represented the State of Bihar. It is the case of Petitioners that, they find themselves in midst of controversy as a result of registration of an impugned FIR based on unfounded allegations, unsubstantiated facts and a misleading complaint which is clearly a counterblast to the FIR filed by Petitioner's father against Respondent No.2 being FIR No.241/2020 dated 25/7/2020. It is their case that FIR is registered by Respondent No.1 on 07/09/2020 on complaint of Ms. Rhea Indrajit Chakraborty (Respondent No.2) in most illegal and arbitrary manner without following the due process of law. Respondent No.2 is the prime accused in FIR No. 241 of 2020 filed by father of Petitioners.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Vikas Singh appearing on behalf of Petitioners invited our attention to the complaint made by Respondent No.2 on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be registered. Learned Senior Advocate pointed out that FIR seeks to narrate the sequence of events pertaining to alleged events that had taken place on 08/06/2020. The FIR is filed by Respondent No.2 inter alia contending that the accused persons conspired with each other and illegally procured false prescription on the letter head of the government hospital which contained psychotropic substances 'clonazepam' and 'chlorodiazepoxide' which are listed at Item 36 & 38 of NDPS Act and administered the same to late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
6. Respondent No.1 registered FIR at around 11.55 p.m. on 07/09/2020 and on the very next date i.e. on 08/09/2020 transferred the case to Respondent No.3. It is pointed out by learned Senior Advocate that the complainant i.e., Respondent No.2, in the said FIR has made various allegations that the Petitioners along with Dr. Tarun Kumar had 'hatched a conspiracy' and obtained a 'false prescription' and administered banned medicines to late Shri Sushant Singh Rajput, which 'may result in a chronic anxiety attack and resulted into commission of suicide and abetted the same.'
7. Learned Senior Advocate urged that the contents of the FIR, even taken at face value, do not constitute allegations of any cognizable offences. He submitted that Respondent No.2 after the death of late actor had specifically written to the Hon'ble Home Minister on 16/07/2020 stating that she was not aware of the cause of death and requested the CBI inquiry for the same. It is his contention that present complaint is a glaring material departure from Respondent No.2's own statement and such material conflict cannot be overlooked from consideration before registration of an FIR.
8. Learned Senior Advocate then submitted that the complainant has relied upon alleged whats-app messages and medical prescription given to late actor which were circulated in social media. According to him the said mes
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
