IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 440 of 2019 Date of Decision: 6.11.2019 ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Pratibha Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting¹? Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the Petitioner: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.

Fhor the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar & Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

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

1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

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, 1^st 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 agai nst her on the basis of FIR sought to be quashed in the instarnt 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 uhnless 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 pendentelite 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