Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Pratibha Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 440 of 2019
Decided On : 06-11-2019
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - SCOPE AND AMBIT - FIR LODGED AGAINST PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 309 IPC ON THE BASIS OF HER OWN STATEMENT - PETITIONER SUFFERING FROM MENTAL STRESS - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 115 OF MENTAL HEALTHCARE ACT, 2017 - FIR QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, who was suffering from mental stress, attempted to commit suicide by consuming phenyl. On the basis of her statement recorded in the hospital under Section 154 Cr.P.C., an FIR was lodged against her under Section 309 IPC. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the FIR lodged against the petitioner under Section 309 IPC was not sustainable as it was based on her own statement and would violate her right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the petitioner was entitled to the presumption under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which provides that a person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR lodged against the petitioner under Section 309 IPC was sustainable? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the presumption under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the FIR lodged against the petitioner under Section 309 IPC was not sustainable as it was based on her own statement and would violate her right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balasaheb alias Ramesh Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) AIR SC 304, wherein it was held that a formal accusation against the person claiming the protection under Article 20(3) must exist for invoking the constitutional right. In the present case, the petitioner was not an accused in any other case and the FIR against her was based solely on her statement. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 2. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the presumption under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which provides that a person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished. The Court noted that the petitioner had made a statement to the police that she had attempted to commit suicide due to mental harassment and torture by her husband and in-laws. The Court held that this statement was sufficient to raise the presumption under Section 115 of the Act and that the onus was on the prosecution to rebut the presumption.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioner under Section 309 IPC and the consequent proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0122 dated 15.12.2016 under Sections 309 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) registered with Police Station, East Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. as well as consequent challan No. 93/2018, titled as State vs. Pratibha pending adjudication in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. primarily on two grounds; (i) no criminal proceedings under Section 309 of IPC could have been initiated against her on the basis of FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings as the same is based upon her own statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (ii) Section 115 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, provides that any person, who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress unless proved otherwise, and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.
2. Necessary facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case are that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 3.6.2010 with a divorcee namely, Anurag Sharma. Since the petitioner and her above named husband were unable to live together on account of certain differences, husband of the petitioner filed Divorce Petition in January, 2012 in the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. on the ground of cruelty and adultery. In the aforesaid proceedings of divorce initiated at the behest of the husband of the petitioner, an application having been filed by the petitioner for maintenance pen-dentelite at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month and litigation charges to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- came to be allowed (Annexure P-1).
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 7.7.2012, husband of the petitioner firstly preferred Civil Revision No. 98 of 2012 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 31.5.2013 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 26774 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.5.2013 (Annexure P-3). Record further reveals that divorce petition filed by the husband of the petitioner also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.3.2014, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in HMP No. 19 of 2011(23 of 2012)499 of 2013 (Annexure P-4). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment rendered by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. husband of the petitioner firstly approached this Court by way of appeal bearing FAO No. 208 of 2014, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter before Hon'ble Apex Court, which was also dismissed on 27.7.2015 (Annexure P-6).
4. Material available on record further reveals that husband of the petitioner also filed FIR bearing No. 29, dated 7.1.2012 against the father of the petitioner and her brother-in-law as counter measure to the petition filed by the petitioner herein under the Domestic Violence Act, but same was cancelled since allegations contained in the same were not found to be genuine.
5. Though, during the pendency of aforesaid proceedings before the various Courts of law, petitioner had been residing separately at Mandi, but on 14.12.2016 with a view to appear in an interview with outsourcing agency NIELIT, Shimla, she visited Shimla. Allegedly, after appearing in the interview, the petitioner went to the house of her father-in-law, where he resides with his wife, but since they refused to entertain her, she was compelled to sleep in the gallery of the house. Allegedly, being hurt with the indifferent behaviour of her in-laws and maltreatment meted by her husband, petitioner consumed phenyl. Petitioner was taken to IGMC, Shimla, whereafter FIR (Annexure P-7) sought to be quashed and set-aside in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against her on the basis of her statement recorded in the ho
AI
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
