Daniyal Qureshi | Symbiosis Law School Pune | 3rd April 2020
Pratibha Das v. State of Himachal Pradesh The High Court of Himachal Pradesh MANU/HP/2052/2019
Facts
The petitioner got married to one Anurag Sharma in 2010. Subsequent to this marriage the petitioner and the husband were unable to reside together due to the differences that arose between the two. After some time in 2012 the husband filed a petition for divorce. During the course of these proceeding the District learned Judge made an order of Rupees 15000 pendente lite and Rupees 50000 for the cost of litigation. Countering this the husband filed a FIR against the brother and the husband of the petitioner which dismissed as it was found to not be genuine.
After some time the petitioner travelled to Shimla, where she approached the residence of her father in law and mother in law. The latter refused to entertain her and she had to sleep for the night 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 hospital under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached the High Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law on the grounds taken note hereinabove.
Issues
- Whether the High Court has the power to quash the FIR
- Whether the charges under the FIR amount to self-incrimination and are barred under Article 20(3) of the constitution
- Whether the petitioner can be lawfully tried for charge under Section 309 of The Indian Penal Code
Judgement
- The inherent powers of the High Court are of a vast and far stretched. Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others[1] has laid down several principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Before pronouncement of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others[2]held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Relevant para is being reproduced herein below:-
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature.
The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab[3] wherein this Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.
- Prosecution with a view to prove its case or contents of the FIR would be necessarily required to examine the person, who has lodged the complaint, meaning thereby petitioner, who is the complainant would be compelled to depose against herself, enabling prosecution to establish case against her under Section 309 of IPC, which action, if allowed/permitted would be definitely in complete violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. First Information Report given by the accused to the police Officer amounts to confessional statement. The was held to be barred by the fundamental right against self-incrimination.
- There is presumption in favour of person making an attempt to commit suicide that he/she was under severe stress and onus, if any, to prove otherwise is always upon the police authorities. If aforesaid provisions of law is read in its entirety, it certainly suggests that before registering case, if any, under Section 309 of IPC, police is required to establish on record that person against whom it intends to register case under Section 309 of IPC is/was not under any kind of stress disentitling him/her from invoking Section 115 of the Act. In the case at hand, case under Section 309 of IPC came to be registered on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner herself that she on account of mental harassment and torture being meted to her by her husband and in laws was under severe stress but interestingly, that sole statement of the petitioner has been made basis to register case against her under Section 309 of IPC.
The court said that :-
“It is most intriguing and frustrating to observe that our penal laws which are nothing but the handiwork of Britishers have by and large remained untouched even after more than 60 years of independence. What a pity that Britishers have themselves amended their penal laws and decriminalised attempt to suicide way back in 1961 but we are yet to even deliberate on taking any action on this decisive issue which subjects an already tormented person to further punishment and ignominy!
In no case does the punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove self defeating and counter – productive”. In any case a person should not be forced to enjoy the right to live to his detriment, disadvantage, and disliking. Further, the “Right to life” under Article 21 should not include “right to die” because this provision might increase the rates of suicides in the country and moreover the “Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of “right to life”.
in no case does the punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove self defeating and counter – productive”. In any case a person should not be forced to enjoy the right to live to his detriment, disadvantage, and disliking. Further, the “Right to life” under Article 21 should not include “right to die” because this provision might increase the rates of suicides in the country and moreover the “Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of “right to life”.”
Petition was allowed by the High Court and the FIR quashed.
[1] 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
[2] 1977 (2) SCC 699
[3] AIR 1960 SC 866
Leave a Reply