Supreme Court Dismisses Priyanka Singh’s Appeal Filed Against Bombay High Court Order Of Refusing To Quash The FIR
The Supreme Court led Bench by Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna & Justice V Subramanian has dismissed the appeal filed by Sushant Singh Rajput’s sister, Priyanaka Singh against the Judgement dated 15.02.2021 passed by Bombay High Court which dismissed the quashing petition filed under Art 226 r/w section 482 of CrPC,1973.
“The Bombay High Court has allowed one petition u/s 482 & not the other. We are not inclined. Dismissed”, CJI
An FIR was registered by the Maharashtra Police during the inquest proceedings against the petitioner on 07.09.2020 regarding an incident that occured on 08.06.2020 on the basis of the material discovered by Respondent No 2 through media networks etc. It was alleged by Respondent No 2 that the prescription that was given to the late actor by the petitioner on 08.06.2020. She further alleged that although she had knowledge about the chats qua prescription but she never told about the same in different statements to police, CBI or interviews in News channels.
Sr Adv Vikas Singh on behalf of the petitioner informed the Bench of the fact that the petitioner had herself withdrawn her main case u/s 306 IPC on 14.09.2020. He further read the response of CBI in which it clearly mentioned that the registration of FIR against the petitioner was illegal & without any jurisdiction. Further he also read the relevant paras of Respondent No 3 as per which no second FIR could have been registered after closure of inquest proceedings by Maharashtra Police.
“The petitioner did not administer any medicine & neither was it a counter case.”, Singh contended
Reliance was placed on Dr B Singh v. Union of India [(2004) 3 SCC 363] in which it was held that media reports were not admissible in evidence to contend that media reports by no stretch of imagination could be held against the petitioner.
“The Hon’ble High Court has overreached its power by examining allegations which were placed before Police through media reports. It has also failed to observe that registration of FIR was also teeth in order passed by this Hon’ble Court in matter of Rhea Chakraborty Vs State ofBihar (Transfer Petition Crl. 225 of 2020) on 19.08.2020, wherein para 34 this Hon’ble Court had directed that Respondent No. 1 can only register the case arising out of inquest proceedings of late actor Sh. Sushant Singh Rajput.”, the plea stated.
The petitioner’s counsel also contended that the present FIR was registered hurriedly on the same day by Respondent No 1 without any inquiry & smacks of malice & in vengeance as the Respondent was herself accused in the case of death of late actor. In this context, to further substantiate the petitioner also submitted that,
“The Hon’ble High Court failed to observe that the delay in the present FIR is 91 days and the same has been registered without any preliminary inquiry as mandated by this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1].”
The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that the prescription was provided in accordance with the regulations of Medical Council of India & Telemedicine Practice & Telepsychiatry Operational Guidelines where the medical practitioner was permitted to prescribe medicine through teleconsultation & also through caregiver. It was also submitted that the High Court had restrictive meaning to the judgement passed by the Supreme court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2005 (6) SCC 1] by looking into the alleged role of the Doctor in prescribing the alleged medicine and had also failed to appreciate that the alleged prescription was prescribed by the doctor in discharge of his professional duty and in ordinary course of business. Therefore there was gross violation of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr as the Court did not ascertain whether the prescribed medicine contained any substance banned under NDPS Act, did not conduct any inquiry from the petitioner with respect to the fact of teleconsultation & neither took into consideration expert’s opinion for registering the FIR. To further substantiate their contention, it was submitted that,
“In case the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble High Court is upheld, it would have grave impact upon the professional doctors across the country. By limiting the meaning of medical negligence and carving out an exception which involves the skill set essential for performing a doctor’s job could cause fear across the country. And the doctors in future would not be free to prescribe medicine knowing fully well that such activity is not free from criminal prosecution.”
The Counsel further referred to TT Antony Vs. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181] to highlight that registration of second F.I.R. would amount to two simultaneous proceedings resulting in multiplicity of proceedings, when it has been mandated that subsequent statement shall be treated as statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
“Despite complainant as well as the prosecuting agency clearly stating that no case is made out, the Hon’ble High Court has not quashed the second FIR which is without authority of law.”, the plea stated.
Case Title: Priyanka Singh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors| SLP(Crl) No. 2200/2021