Bombay High Court
Priyanka Singh And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Makarand Subhash Karnik
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
Ingale/DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 2712 OF 2020
1. Priyanka Singh
Age 39,
Resident : C-10, Second Floor,
Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi 110 028.
2. Meetu Singh
Age -45,
Resident B -21,
Rajnighandha Apartment
Goregaon West,
Mumbai - 400 104. ....Petitioners
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Inspector of Police
Bandra Police Station,
Mumbai, Maharashtra
2. Miss. Reha Indrajit Chakraborty
Age : 28 years
101, Primrose Apartment,
Near SNDT College,
Juhu Road, Santa Cruz,
West Mumbai 400 054.
3. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through Directors,
Plot Not. 5 - B, 6th Floor,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003. ..... Respondents
Mr.Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr.M.V. Thorat i/b Mr.M.V.Thorat,
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
for the Petitioners.
Mr.Satish Maneshinde a/w Ms.Namita Maneshinde, for
Respondent No.2.
Mr.Devdatta Kamat, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.Deepak Thakre, PP,
Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP a/w Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, Mr.Rajesh Inamdar and
Mr.Hemant Shah, for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr.Anil C.Singh, ASG a/w Mr.Sandesh Patil a/w Mr.D.P. Singh, for
Respondent No.3 - CBI.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
M. S. KARNIK, JJ
RESERVED ON : 07th JANUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th FEBRUARY, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard fnally 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 ofences
punisable 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').
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
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 sufered
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 fnd 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
fled 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
fled 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
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
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
fled 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
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
the FIR, even taken at face value, do not constitute allegations of
any cognizable ofences. He submitted that Respondent No.2
after the death of late actor had specifcally 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 confict 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 messages were
purportedly being circulated in news channels and also reported
by newspapers which did not disclose its source. He therefore
urged that the Respondent No.1 without conducting a preliminary
enquiry regarding the source of the information have registered
an FIR in haste due to ulterior motives. Learned Senior Advocate
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of 1Dr.B.Singh Versus Union of India to urge that Their
Lordship have held that newspaper reports cannot be treated as
1 (2004) 3 SCC 363
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
evidence. Learned Senior Advocate was at pains to submit that
the registration of FIR without enquiry smacks of vengeance, a
counterblast and also refects grave impropriety and abuse of
process.
9. Learned Senior Advocate then pointed out that the
case of Respondent No.2 primarily relates to abetment of suicide
by the Petitioners which stands withdrawn by the letter dated
14/09/2020 wherein it is clearly stated by Respondent No.2 that
she withdrew her case of abetment of suicide. It is then
contended that in the complaint there are no allegations of
forgery nor consumption of illegal drugs and the entire case of
the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners is false and fimsy.
He submitted that in the complaint it is nowhere alleged that the
alleged prescription of drugs was used by any person for
purchase of drugs nor there is allegation that late actor
consumed drugs allegedly prescribed. According to him,
complainant only made out the case of abetment of suicide as
the ofence and the Respondent No.2 has been extra indulgent
in adding sections on its own both under IPC and under the NDPS
without the ingredients of said sections being made out in the
allegations. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that
there is inordinate delay of 83 days in lodging the FIR in as much
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
as the alleged incident and the averments in the FIR were known
to the complainant on the date of the incident itself and the
delay has been not at all explained by the complainant. Learned
Senior Advocate emphasized that the complainant has claimed
to have knowledge of the alleged medical prescriptions since
08/06/2020 having seen the alleged chats herself, but has failed
to explain as to why she remained silent for 83 days and then
makes an allegation only after she has been made prime accused
in the FIR fled by father of the Petitioners. In his submission the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
Governement of U.P. & ors. has held that a preliminary
enquiry is mandatory in such cases which was not done in
present case.
10. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the
FIR is in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 3
Jacob Matthew Vs. State of Punjab &
anr. wherein it has been held that obtaining a medical opinion
from experts is sine qua non for direction and investigation of
ofences against a registered medical practitioner. Learned
Senior Advocate submitted that the private complainant and the
police cannot have the requisite knowledge of medical science as
2 (2014) 2 SCC 1
3 2005 (6) SCC 1
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
to determine whether Tele Medicine Guidelines or Tele Psychiatry
Guidelines have been adhered or not and only an expert is
required to determine whether alleged prescribed medication is
actually a salt of 'clonazepam' or 'chlorodiazepoxide. He thus
submitted that FIR has been registered without taking into
account expert's opinion and the same is in violation of the
guidelines issued by Their Lordships in the case of Jacob
Mathew (supra). Learned Senior Advocate contends that
Dr.Tarun Kumar is an authorized medical practitioner in
accordance with the MCI Regulations and Telemedicine Practice
Guidelines and Telepsychiatry Operational Guidelines, therefore
he is authorised to prescribe the alleged drugs. He pointed out
that Dr.Tarun Kumar is a senior interventional cardiologist
working in RML Hospital Delhi who had the requisite qualifcation
and the authority to prescribe the alleged drugs. Our attention is
invited to the relevant portion 4.2.1 of the guidelines which
reads thus :
"4.2.1 For the purpose of these guidelines "Caregiver"could be a
family member, or any person authorised by the patient to
represent the patient."
11. Our attention is drawn to these guidelines in support
of his submission that the Petitioners are the sisters of late Shri
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
Sushant Singh Rajput and are related by blood to him. Thus,
according to him, telemedicine guidelines clearly grant status of
caregiver to the Petitioners. He therefore urged that the
allegation of Respondent No.2 - complainant that Petitioner
could not get the said prescription issued is completely baseless.
He further submitted that telemedicine and telepsychiatry
guidelines allowed consultation through telemedicine for
issuance of drugs as per the requirement of the patient. In
support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate relied upon
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 4Mir Nagvi Askari
Vs. C.B.I. and 5Mohammad Ibrahim and ors. Vs. State of
Bihar and anr.
12. It is further submitted that the provisions of NDPS Act
under which the accusations against the Petitioners are
preferred pertains to production, manufacturing, possession,
sale, purchase, transport, warehouse, usage, consumption,
import/export etc., except for medical or scientifc purposes. It
is his submission that the NDPS Act does not criminalize the mere
writing of a prescription as alleged by complainant. Learned
Senior Advocate vehemently urged that though it is the
allegation of the complainant that alleged medicine was
4 92009) 15 SCC 643
5 (2009) 8 SCC 751
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
prescribed by Dr.Tarun Kumar at instance of the Petitioner No.1,
however bare reading of complaint shows that there is not even
a single allegation nor any information as to whether any such
medicine was actually procured or administered to anyone. It is
therefore his contention that FIR is registered on vague complaint
based on alleged conjectures and surmises with ulterior motive
to frame the Petitioners.
13. It is then contended by learned Senior Advocate that
the FIR has been registered in direct contravention of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rhea
Chakraborty Vs. State of Bihar [Transfer Petition (Cri.) 225 of
2020] vide order dated 19/08/2020. He invited our attention to
paragraphs 34, 36 & 41 of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in support of his submissions. It is thus urged that
Respondent No.1 - complainant did not have any independent
right to register any new case but were permitted to register a
case only on the condition that some cognizable ofence came
out during the inquest proceedings under section 174 and
section 175 of the CrPC after concluding the inquest proceedings.
14. The next contention of learned Senior Advocate is that no
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
second FIR can be registered on the basis of the same cause of
action, as already FIR No. 241 of 2020 registered at Rajiv Nagar
Police Station, Patna, subsequently transferred to CBI, is pending
on same cause of action. It is the submission of learned Senior
Advocate that any information received on same cause of action
should be part of the ongoing investigation even if it discloses
diferent ofence. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon the
decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of 6
TT
Anthony Vs. State of Kerala to contend that the complaint
given by Respondent No.2 can only be treated as statement
under section 162 CrPC and cannot form basis of present FIR.
15. Lastly, Senior Advocate submits that the FIR is a
counterblast to the earlier FIR fled by Petitioners's father in
which the Respondent No.2 is the prime accused. Learned
Senior Advocate submits that the present FIR is nothing but an
instance of malicious prosecution where the unsubstantiated
and baseless allegations do not disclose the commission of any
ofence and the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fde
and the same deserves to be quashed at the threshold as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of 7State of
Haryana and ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
6 (2001) 6 SCC 181
7 AIR 1992 SC 604
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
16. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Devdas Kamat appearing
on behalf of Respondent No.1 invited our attention to the
allegations made in the complaint and submits that the police
was duty bound to register FIR in respect of the information
received on commission of cognizable ofences. According to
him, as complaint discloses the commission of cognizable
ofence, hence, the Respondent No.1 was statutorily obliged
under section 154 of CRPC and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra) to register the FIR. He points out
that the Respondent No.1 registered the FIR at around 11.55 p.m.
on 07/09/2020 and on the very next day i.e. on 08/09/2020
transferred the case to Respondent No.3. According to him, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while transferring the investigation to CBI
categorically observed that any further case relating to the
death of Shri Sushant Singh Rajput if registered in Mumbai, will
be investigated by CBI. Hence, it is the submission of learned
Senior Advocate that the contention of the Petitioners that by
virtue of order dated 19/08/2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
transferring the case to CBI, Respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction
to register the impugned FIR is completely misconceived and
baseless. He invited our attention to paragraphs 36 & 41 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Rhea Chakraborty Vs. State of
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
Bihar (supra) in support his contentions.
17. Learned Senior Advocate then submits that the
impugned FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable
ofences under the relevant provisions of IPC and NDPS Act. It is
submitted that purported OPD prescription dated 08/06/2020 ,
whats-app chat conversation between the Petitioners and late
actor Shri Sushant Singh Rajput categorically pointed out that
the medicines were being prescribed without online consultation.
He then invited our attention to the OPD registration card and it
is his submission that the contents therein would clearly reveal
that the same is fabricated and is purportedly issued without
examination of the late actor, as Shri Sushant Singh Rajput was
actually in Mumbai. According to him, the whatsapp
conversation and time of the conversation between the Petitioner
No.1 and late actor prima facie demonstrates that no
teleconsultation actually took place between late actor and
Dr.Tarun Kumar. He submits that the whats-app conversation
and the materials on record requires investigation as the same
clearly indicates that there was not even an online consultation
with the Doctor and the prescription is fabricated. Inviting our
attention to the alleged prescription read with Rule 65A of NDPS
Act and Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, he submits
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
that the provisions mandates that substances specifed in
schedule H & H1 shall not be sold without prescription. Our
attention is also invited to Rule 97 to contend that the drugs
prescribed cannot be purchased over the counter without the
prescription of a qualifed doctor. It is submitted that schedule
H1 covers highly sensitive drugs. He submits that both the
drugs are included in the schedule of the NDPS Act and also
forms the part of Schedule H and H1 of the Drugs and Cosmetic
Rules and are clearly psychotropic drugs falling within the
prohibition of section 8 of the NDPS Act which requires thorough
investigation to ascertain whether consumption of high dosage or
otherwise of such drugs which are clearly not over the counter
drugs caused unfortunate death of the late actor.
18. He further uged that owing to the risk to human beings,
drug "Chlorodiazepoxide" is also prohibited under section 26-A of
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to be sold, manufactured or
distributed as fxed dose combinations. It is then submitted by
learned Senior Advocate that Telemedicine guidelines published
in March 2020 has laid down the manner in which prescription
can be given during tele consultation session with the patient.
Learned Senior Advocate submitted that there has to be efective
consultation which was not even prima facie carried out in the
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
case. He invited our attention to clauses 3, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
4.2, 4.4, 4.5 to contend that the guidelines have been clearly
violated in the present case. According to him, in the instant
case, no video consultation has been done whatsoever which is
evident from the OPD prescription and whats-app conversation
between the Petitioners and late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
Learned Senior Advocate then submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 8Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash
has explained and clarifed the judgment in 'TT Antony' and
observed that said case does not exclude the registration of a
complaint in the nature of a counterclaim from the purview of the
court. According to him what had been laid down in the
aforesaid case is that any further complaint by the same
complainant against the same accused, subsequent to the
registration of a case, is prohibited under the CrP.C. because an
investigation in this regard would have already started and
further the complaint against the same accused will amount to
an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original
complaint. He therefore submits that this rule will not apply to a
counter claim by the accused in the frst complaint or on his
behalf alleging a diferent version of the said incident. He
submits that as there are rival versions in respect of the same
8 (2004) 13 SCC 292.
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
episode, the Investigating Agency would take the same on two
diferent FIRs and investigation can be carried under both of
them by the same investigating agency and thus, fling an FIR
pertaining to a counter claim in respect of the same incident
having a diferent version of events is permissible.
19. Learned Senior Advocate then submitted that law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Matthew
(supra) is not applicable to the present facts. According to him,
Jacob Matthew was the case of medical negligence whereas the
instant case is not a medical negligence case. He then relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 9State of
Karnataka Vs. Pastor P. Raju to contend that the power under
section 482 read with 226 of the Constitution of India ought not
to be used to stife legitimate prosecution or investigation and
such power has to be exercised sparingly. In his submission, the
legal position is well settled that the High Court ought not to
interfere with and quash the entire proceedings in exercise of
power conferred by Section 482 CrPC when the matter is still at
the investigation stage. He also relied upon the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib
Abdullah Jeelani ( paragraph 13) and the decision in the case of
9 (2006) 6 SCC 728
10 (2017) 2 SCC 779
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
XYZ Vs. State of Gujarat.
20. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 adopted the
arguments of learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No.1. He argued on lines similar as canvased by
learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1. Inviting our
attention to the complaint fled, learned Advocate invited our
attention to the relevant paragraphs in the complaint pertaining
to the role of petitioner No.2. He submitted that the medication
was prescribed by petitioner No.1 who had no medical degree.
Further he pointed out that the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput
had asked respondent No.2 to move out of the house as his other
sister viz. Petitioner No.2 ( Meetu Singh) was coming to live with
him and take care of him. Respondent No.2 left the house of late
actor on 08/06/2020 whereafter it is alleged that petitioner No.2
was residing with him. It is then submitted by learned Counsel
that FIR alleges that petitioner No.1 Priyanka Singh, Dr.Tarun
Kumar and other known and unknown persons conspired to
prescribe such controlled substance to the deceased and
therefore a through investigation is necessitated. It is therefore
his contention that the action of petitioner No.1, Dr.Tarun Kumar
and other known and unknown person be investigated and it be
11 (2019) 10 SCC 337
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
determined as to how they came to provide the deceased with
such a bogus and unlawful prescription. He therefore submits
that investigation is required as to whether the deceased then
proceeded to take the medicines thus prescribed which may
have contributed to his death and further deteriorated his
health. According to learned Counsel, petitioner No.2 Meetu
Singh was the only person staying with the late actor Sushant
Singh Rajput from 08/06/2020 till 12/06/2020 who was taking his
care and she had administered the medicines mentioned by
Dr.Tarun Kumar in the prescription without supervising the doses
and the quantity of medicine. It is submitted that due to this,
the health of late actor worsened and deteriorated. He then
invited our attention to the allegation in the complaint where it is
stated that complainant suspected that due to such banned
medicines prescribed by Dr.Tarun Kumar at the behest of
petitioner No.1 (Priyanka Singh) having knowledge that such
banned medicines and heavy doses of medicines may result into
chronic anxiety attack which may damage health of Sushant
Singh further and the medicine might have been procured by the
sister Meetu Singh and further consumption by Sushant Singh
which resulted into suicide. It is therefore his submission that the
allegation that petitioner and Dr.Tarun Kumar abetted suicide of
late actor Sushant Singh needs to be investigated.
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
21. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Anil Singh appearing on
behalf of Respondent No.3 submits that in the light of the order
passed by the Apex Court on 19/08/2020 in Rhea Chakroborty's
case, any matter pertaining to and surrounding circumstances of
unnatural death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput ought to be
investigated by the CBI only. According to him, the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not allow registration of any
such FIR and hence, registration of FIR by Bandra police station
at the behest of the Respondent No.2 is complete departure from
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He
submitted that CBI is conducting the investigation meticulously
and professionally without being hindered by any external factor
and would thoroughly look into each and every aspect relating to
the death of late Sushant Singh Rajput in a fair and impartial
manner. He urged that if Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2
had to provide any information regarding the death of Sushant
Singh Rajput, the same should have been directly shared with the
CBI for necessary action at its end and the registration of the FIR
by Bandra police station on the said information is not required,
however, they chose to register the separate FIR in the matter
which is impermissible and contrary not only to the law laid down
by Apex Court but also the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
Court in the case of Rhea Chakroborty.
CONSIDERATION
22. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties at length. We have perused the copy of the Petition, the
complaint made by the respondent No.2 pertaining to counter
claim in respect of same incident having diferent version of
events on the basis of the FIR which came to be registered and
the documents annexed to the Petition.
23. The present matter pertains to the tragic incident in which
the Bollywood actor Shri Sushant Singh Rajput, aged 34 years
was found dead at his residence.
24. The complaint is fled by the respondent No.2 contending
that the accused persons conspired with each other and illegally
procured false prescription on the letter head of a Government
hospital which contained psychotropic substances "Clonazepam"
and "Chlorodiazepoxide' which are listed as item 36 and 38 of
the Schedule of NDPS Act and administered the same to late
actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
25. We frstly deal with the submission of learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioners that the respondent No.1 has no
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
jurisdiction to register second FIR in view of the fact that the
earlier FIR No. 241 of 2020 was being investigated by the CBI
under the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
It appears that second respondent registered the FIR
pertaining to the counter complaint in respect of same incident
having a diferent version of events, which according to us is
permissible. We have gone through the order dated 19/8/2020
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A reference to paragraphs
36 and 41 is necessary where Their Lordships observed thus :-
"36. The ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be
lawful. In the event a new case is registered at Mumbai on
the same issue, in the ftness of things, it would be
appropriate if the latter case too gets investigated
by the same agency, on the strength of this Court's
order. Such enabling order will make it possible for
the CBI to investigate the new case, avoiding the
rigors of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, requiring
consent from the State of Maharashtra.
41... Therefore while according approval for the
ongoing CBI investigation, if any other case is
registered on the death of the actor Sushant Singh
Rajput and the surrounding circumstances of his
unnatural death, the CBI is directed to investigate
the new case as well. It is ordered accordingly."
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
26. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the registration of the
FIR on 7/9/2020 by the respondent No.1, the case was
transferred to CBI on the very next date i.e. 8/9/2020. The
respondent No.1 being satisfed with the information in the
complaint disclosed the commission of the cognizable ofences
registered the FIR as mandated by the provisions of Section 154
of the Cr.P.C, and in view of exposition of law in the case of
Bhajanlal.
27. It is then the contention of learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner that registration of a second FIR is impermissible in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala12. So far as said contention is
concerned, we fnd from the subsequent decision by larger bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Upkar Singh vs. Ved
Prakash13 that fling of counter complainant is permissible.
Paragraph 23 of the said judgment reads as under :
"23. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T.
Antony's case is to be accepted as holding a second complaint in
regard to the same incident fled as a counter complaint is
prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion
would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the
hypothetical example given herein below i.e. if in regard to a
crime committed by the real accused he takes the frst
opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is
registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim
of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving
12 (2001) 6 SCC 181
13 (2004) 13 SCC 292
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be
deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to
book. This cannot be the purport of the Code.
24. We have already noticed that in the T.T. Antony's case this
Court did not consider the legal right of an aggrieved person to
fle counterclaim, on the contrary from the observations found in
the said judgment it clearly indicates that fling a counter
complaint is permissible."
In the FIR fled by the father of the petitioners, the
respondent No.2 is the main accused. The complaint made by
the respondent No.2 on the basis of which the present FIR came
to be fled alleges a diferent version of the said incident thus
there are rival versions in respect of the same incident. In our
opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Upkar Singh, the registration of the FIR i.e. counter
complaint, at the instance of the respondent No.2 is not
prohibited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that any
further complaint by the same complainant against the same
accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited
under the Cr.P.C. because an investigation in this regard would
have already started and further the complaint against the same
accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned
in the original complaint, hence, will be prohibited under Section
162 Cr.P.C. Present Petitioners are not accused in the frst FIR.
2nd respondent has fled the 2nd FIR in the nature of counter
complaint in respect of the same incident having a diferent
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
version of events which is legally permissible. We therefore do
not fnd substance in the contention of the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioners that a second FIR is impermissible.
28. Let us examine the contention of learned Senior Advocate
for petitioners that the FIR against the doctor is not maintainable
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jacob Matthew vs. State of Punjab & anr.14. In that
case Their Lordships were considering a case of medical
negligence. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR reveals
that there was not even an online consultation with doctor and
the prescription is fabricated. It is alleged that OPD registration
card dated 8/6/2020 issued in Delhi is a fabricated one, and is
purportedly issued without examination of the late actor who was
actually in Mumbai. It is further alleged that the OPD registration
card dated 8/6/2020 is timed at 11:16:37 AM from Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi in the name of patient
Sushant Singh Rajput, aged 34 years, shown in Room : 6/Queue :
81. The said OPD card reveals that Dr. Tarun Kumar the Associate
Professor (Cardiology) has purportedly examined actor Sushant
Singh Rajput in Room No.6 at the said Hospital in Delhi and
diagnosed him with anxiety and prescribed him the following
14 2005 (6) SCC 1
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
drugs (1) Nexitor, 2) Librium and 3) Lonazep. Considering the
allegations that there was not even an online consultation with
doctor and the prescription is fabricated, it is not possible to hold
the complaint as not maintainable applying the ratio of 'Jacob
Matthew'. We therefore do not fnd favour with the submissions
made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner on this
aspect when an investigation is at a preliminary stage.
29. We now deal with the submission of learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner that where, the allegations made in
the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any ofence or make out a case against the accused. Before we
deal with this aspect it would be pertinent to examine the
principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise
of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of quashing
of FIR or complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 15 in
the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
15 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code gave the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Their
Lordships observed that it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defned and sufciently channelised and infexible
guideline or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
The categories spelt out by Their Lordships in paragraph 102
reads thus :
"102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defned and sufciently
channelised and infexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any ofence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not
disclose a cognizable ofence, justifying an investigation by
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
police ofcers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any ofence and make out
a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable ofence but constitute only a non-cognizable
ofence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofcer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufcient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a
specifc provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fde and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
30. We may also refer to paragraph 103 in Bhajan Lal's case
where Their Lordships gave a note of caution to the efect that
the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases ; that the court will not be justifed in embarking
upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and that the
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
31. Reverting to the present case, the question is whether the
allegations made in the complaint do clearly constitute a
cognizable ofence justifying the registration of a case and an
investigation thereon and thus this case does not fall under any
one of the categories of cases formulated by Their Lordships in
Bhajanlal's case (supra) for the exercise of extraordinary or
inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR itself.
32. The allegations made in the complaint reveals exchange of
messages between the petitioner No.1 and late actor regarding
the list of medicines. The allegations made in the FIR pertain to a
prescription dated 8/6/2020 which contained various medications
controlled under the NDPS Act. It is alleged that the drugs
prescribed by Dr. Tarun Kumar were prohibited from being
prescribed electronically under the Telemedicine Practice
Guidelines issued on 25th March, 2020, which constitutes
Appendix 5 of the Indian Medical Council (Profession Conduct,
Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. The complaint reveals
that in the prescription dated 8/6/2020, Dr. Tarun Kumar has
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
prescribed Nexito 5 mg, Librium 10 mg and Lonazep MD 0.5 mg
to late actor for anxiety. It is alleged that tablet Librium is with
the content 'Chlorodiazepoxide' which appears at Item No.36 in
the list of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act, while
Nexito and Lonazep MD both contain Clonazepam which appears
at Item No.38 in the list of psychotropic substances under the
NDPS Act. It is further alleged that Clause 3.7.4. of the
Telemedicine Practice Guidelines provides as "...... Prohibited
List : An RMP providing consultation via telemedicine cannot
prescribe medicines in this list. These medicines have a high
potential of abuse and could harm the patient or the society at
large if used improperly. Medicines listed in Schedule X of Drugs
and Cosmetic Act and Rules or any Narcotic and psychotropic
substance listed in the NDPS Act. The allegation is that the
accused prescribed psychotropic substances without any
consultation or examination in violation of various provisions of
the NDPS Act and the Telemedicine Practice Guidelines, 2020. It
is further alleged that the prescription prepared by them in
connivance with each other is a fabricated and false document.
The prescription refects the deceased as an OPD patient when
on the date and time at which the said prescription was sent, the
deceased was very much in Mumbai, Maharashtra and not in
New Delhi. It is further alleged that Dr. Tarun Kumar being a
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
Cardiologist thought it ft to prescribe psychotropic substances to
a person i.e. late Sushant Singh Rajput, he did not know and had
never met. The allegation is that unlawful prescription of
psychotropic substance was obtained at the behest of late
actor's sister - petitioner No.1 and the said Dr. Tarun Kumar. It is
thus alleged that even the death of the deceased and the
investigation surrounding the circumstances of his death, it is
imperative that the actions of petitioner No.1, Dr. Tarun Kumar
and other known and unknown persons who conspired to
prescribe such controlled substances ought to be investigated as
well.
33. It is further alleged that the complainant suspects that due
to such banned medicine prescribed by Dr. Tarun Kumar at the
behest of the petitioner No.1 having knowledge that such banned
medicine and heavy dose of medicine may result into chronic
anxiety attack which may damage health of late actor further
and the medicine might have been procured by the Petitioner No.
2 - Meetu Singh and further consumption by late actor which
resulted into suicide. It is therefore alleged that the accused
abetted the suicide of the late actor. Along with the complaint are
enclosed, the printouts of whats-app chats on 8/6/2020 between
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
late actor and petitioner No.1 and the printout of the prescription
on the letterhead of the Government Hospital Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, on 8/6/2020 having stamp and
signature of Dr. Tarun Kumar.
34. It is alleged that the purported OPD prescription dated
8/6/2020 and transcripts of the Whats-app chats conversation
between the petitioner No.1 and late actor categorically point out
that the medicines were being prescribed without online
consultation. Further it is alleged that the OPD registration card
dated 8/6/2020 is timed at 11:16:37 am from Dr. Rm Manohar
Lohia Hospital, New Delhi in name of patient Sushant Singh
Rajput, aged 34 years. shown in Room : 6/Queue : 81. In the said
OPD card, Dr. Tarun Kumar, Associate Professor (Cardiology) has
purportedly examined actor Sushant Singh Rajput in Room No.6
at the said Hospital in Delhi and diagnosed him with anxiety and
prescribed him the following drugs (1) Nexitor, 2) Librium and 3)
Lonazep.
35. The allegation is that the purported OPD registration card
dated 8/6/2020 issued in Delhi is a fabricated one, and is
purportedly issued without examination of late actor who was
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
actually in Mumbai. It is further alleged that Whats-app
conversation and the time of conversation between petitioner
No.1 and late actor prima facie demonstrates that no tele
consultation actually took place between late actor and Dr. Tarun
Kumar. It is thus submitted that in view of the materials on record
an investigation is necessitated as the material show that there
was not even an online consultation with the Doctor and the
prescription is fabricated.
36. At this juncture, it is necessary to make reference to the
provisions of NDPS Act and rules thereunder. In the facts of the
present case, it is seen that "MEDICINES PRESCRIBED ARE IN THE
LIST OF PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES UNDER THE NARCOTICS DRUGS
AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 ["NDPS ACT"]. We have
carefully read the written submissions of learned Senior Advocate
appearing for respondent No.1 and found it worth to accept the
said legal submissions qua petitioner No.1 which would attract
the provisions of NDPS Act. Relevant provisions are discussed
herein below.
The alleged prescription of Dr. Tarun Kumar of following
drugs. 1) Nexito, 2) Librium & 3) Lonazep contains
Chlorodiasepoxide and Clonazepam which appears at (Item
No.36 and 38) of the Schedule in the list of Psychotropic
Substances under the NDPS Act.
Rule 65-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
Substances Rules, 1985 framed under the NDPs Act categorically
enumerates that no person shall sale, purchase, consume or use
any psychotropic substances substance except in accordance
with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Rules.
[65-A. Sale, purchase, consumption or use of psychotropic
substances. - No person shall sell, purchase, consume or use any
psychotropic substance except in accordance with the Drugs and
Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Rules : ]
Further Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules
mandates that substances specifed in Schedule H and H1 shall
not be sold without prescription. It is pertinent to note that drug
Chlordiazepoxide is at S1 18 of Schedule H1 and Clonazepam at
S1. 125 of (Prescription Drugs) Schedule H of Drugs and
Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Rule 65 reads as under :
"65. Condition of licences. Licences in [Forms 20, 20-A, 20-
B, 20-F, 0-G, 21 and 21-B] shall be subject to the conditions
stated therein and to the following general conditions. -
...
...
[(9)(a) Substances specifed in [Schedule H and Schedule H1] or
Schedule X shall not be sold by retail except on and in
accordance with the prescription of a Registered Medical
Practitioner and in the case of substances specifed in Schedule
X, the prescriptions shall be in duplicate, one copy of which shall
be retained by the licensee for a period of two years
(b) The supply of drugs specifed in [Schedule H and
Schedule H1] or Schedule X to Registered Medical Practitioners,
Hospitals, Dispensaries and Nursing Homes shall be made only
against the signed order in writing which shall be preserved by
the licensee for a period of two years.]
(10) For the purposes of clause (9) a prescription shall -
(a) be in writing and be signed by the person giving it with
his usual signature and be dated by him ;
(b) specify the name and address of the person for whose
treatment it is given, or the name and address of the owner of
the animal if the drug is meant for veterinary us ;]
(c) indicate the total amount of the medicine to be
supplied and the does to be taken.
(11) The person dispensing a prescription containing a drug
specifed in [Schedule H and Schedule H1] [and Schedule X] shall
comply with the following requirements in addition to other
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
requirements of these Rules --"
Further Rule 97 provides for printing caution / warning in
respect of drugs covered under Schedule H, Schedule G and
substance covered under the purview of Narcotic & Psychotropic
Drugs Act, 1985 for the information of patients, doctors,
pharmacists and others so that there is no misuse of these
drugs. Rule 97 reads as under :
"97. Labelling of medicines. - [(1) The container of a
medicine for internal use shall -
(a) ...
(b) if it contains a drug substance specifed in Schedule H, be
labeled with symbol Rx and conspicuously displayed on the left
top corner of the label and shall also be labeled with the
following words in legible black coloured font size in completely
red rectangular box :
SCHEDULE H PRESCRIPTION DRUG - CAUTION
Not to be sold by retail without the prescription of a Registered
Medical Practitioner
(c) if it contains a drug substance specifed in Schedule H and
comes within the purview of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) be labeled with symbol Nrx,
which shall be in red and conspicuously displayed on the left top
corner of the label and shall also be labeled with the following
words in legible black coloured font size in completely red
rectangular box."
SCHEDULE H PRESCRIPTION DRUG - WARNING
To be sold by retail on the prescription of a Registered Medical
Practitioner only.
(d) ..
(e) it it contains a drug substance specifed in Schedule H1, be
labeled with symbol Rx, which shall be in red and conspicuously
displayed on the left top corner of the label and shall also be
labeled with the following words in legible black coloured font
size in completely red rectangular box :
SCHEDULE H1 PRESCRIPTION DRUG - CAUTION
- It is dangerous to take this preparation except in accordance
with the medical advice.
- Not to be sold by retail without the prescription of a
Registered Medical Practitioner.
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
(f) If it contains a drug substance specifed in Schedule
H1 and comes within the purview of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) be labeled with
symbol Nrx, which shall be in red and conspicuously displayed
on the left top corner of the label and shall also be labeled with
the following words in legible black coloured font size in
completely red rectangular box :
SCHEDULE H1 PRESCRIPTION DRUG - CAUTION
- It is dangerous to take this preparation except in
accordance with the medical advice.
- Not to be sold by retail without the prescription of a
Registered Medical Practitioner.
Schedule H and H1 are a class of prescription drugs in
India appearing as an appendix to the Drugs and Cosmetics
Rules, 1945 introduced in 1945. These drugs cannot be
purchased over the counter without the prescription of a
qualifed doctor. Schedule H1 covers highly sensitive drugs.
Aforesaid both the drugs are included in the schedule of
the NDPS Act and also forms part of Schedule H and H1 of the
Drugs and Cosmetic Rules and are clearly Psychotropic drugs
falling within the prohibition of Section 8 of NDPS Act which
requires thorough investigation to ascertain whether
consumption of high dosage or otherwise of such drugs which
are clearly not over the counter drugs caused unfortunate death
of the late actor.
Further owing to risk to human beings drug
"Chlordiazepoxide" is also prohibited under Section 26-A of
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to be sold, manufactured or
distributed as fxed dose combinations.
(see Sl. 12 of the selected notifcations under
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940)
The guidelines published in March 2020 have laid
down the manner in which prescription can be given during tele
consultation session with the patient. The guidelines clearly
state that the prerequisite of tele medicine is that there has to
be efective consultation which was not prima facie carried out
in the case.
Clause 3 of the Guidelines mandates the RMP to exercise
proper discretion and not compromise on the quality of care.
Clause 3.1.1 directs the RMPs to exercise professional judgment
to decide whether telemedicine consultation is appropriate in a
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
given situation or an in-person consultation is needed in the
interest of the patient.
Clause 3.2 of the Guidelines requires proper identifcation
of the RMP and the patient and prescription be issued only after
proper verifcation and identifcation of the patient. In instant
case no such identifcation exercise was carried out.
Clause 3.3 gives discretion to the RMP to choose mode of
telemedicine and suggest a real time consultation with the
patient to ascertain the diagnosis and hear and visually examine
the patient in relevant situations.
Clause 3.4 requires the RMP to seek patients consent for
telemedicine consultation and mandates to acquire explicit
consent which requires to be recorded in any form if the
caregiver initiates a telemedicine consultation. No such consent
implied or explicit has been taken by the RMP in the instant
case.
Under Clause 3.5 the RMP is required to not proceed with
consultation if a physical examination is necessary for patient
evaluation. And wherever necessary, depending on professional
judgment of the RMP, he / she shall commend : - Video
consultation - Examination by another RMP / Health Worker ; - In
- person consultation.
Clause 3.6 envisages diferent types of consultation and
3.7 contemplates patient management. Clause 3.7.4 sets the
protocol for prescribing medicines. If a medical condition
requires a particular protocol to diagnose and prescribe as in a
case of in-person consult then same prevailing principle will be
applicable to a telemedicine consult. RMP may prescribe
medicines via telemedicine ONLY when RMP is satisfed that he /
she has gathered adequate and relevant information about the
patient's medical condition and prescribed medicines are in the
best interest of the patient. Prescribing Medicines without an
appropriate diagnosis/ provisional diagnosis will amount to a
professional misconduct.
Further, Clause 3.6 sets specifc restrictions on prescribing
medicines from the prohibited list since these medicines have a
high potential of abuse and could harm the patient or the
society at large if used improperly. The aforesaid clause
categorically prohibits prescribing medicines listed in Schedule
of Narcotic and Psychotropic substance listed in the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Both the drugs prescribed by the RMP are psychotropic
substance forming part of the Schedule if NDPS Act and also
Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
Clause 4.2 deals with the procedure to be followed if the
consultation between patient and RMP is through caregiver who
is family member. Clause 4.2.2 (2b) contemplates that caregiver
should have a formal authorization or a verifed document
establishing his relationship with the patient and/or has been
verifed by the patient in a previous in-person consult (explicit
consult).
In all cases of emergency situation Clause 4.5 mandates,
the patient MUST be advised for an in-person interaction with a
Registered Medical Practitioner at the earliest.
Although drug only Clonazepam has been included in the
list A medicines of medicine list of Telemedicine practice
Guidelines on 11.04.2020 by the Medical Council of India,
however the Telepsychiatry Operational Guidelines 2020
published in May 2020 categorically mandate that these
medications can be presented during the frst / new consult via
"video consultation only". In the instant case, it appears that no
video consultation has been done whatsoever."
37. Considering the rival contentions, allegations made in the
complaint, the materials enclosed along with the complaint prima
facie disclose alleged ofences as against petitioner No.1,
therefore, there is no force in the contention raised by the
Counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the
counter complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
ofence or make out a case against the petitioner No.1 - accused.
It is well settled principle of law that the power of quashing a
criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases ; that the
court will not be justifed in embarking upon an inquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
the FIR or complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka and another vs. Pastor P. Raju16 has settled the
legal position stating that the High Court ought not to interfere
with and quash the entire proceedings in exercise of power
conferred by Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the matter was still at
the investigation stage. We may also make a proftable reference
to the decision in the case of State of Telangana vs. Habib
Abdullah Jeelani17 where Their Lordships have held that there is
no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
of very wide amplitude but it needs no special emphasis to state
that conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
39. Reverting to the present case, in our considered view, the
allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a
cognizable ofence as against only petitioner No.1 - Priyanka
Singh justifying the registration of a case and an investigation
16 (2006) 6 SCC 728
17 (2017) 2 SCC 779
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
thereon and thus this case does not fall under any one of the
categories of cases formulated in 'Bhajan Lal' calling for the
exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers to quash the FIR
itself. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, we fnd from the
complaint and the materials on record that the allegation is made
against her is only on the basis of suspicion that the medicine
might have been procured by petitioner No.2. It is on the basis of
suspicion and vague allegation that the FIR is registered against
the petitioner No.2. Respondent No.2 in the complaint says that
she came to know that petitioner No.2 who lives in Mumbai came
to stay with late actor in the evening of 08/06/2020 after the
respondent No.2 left. It is the allegation that till 12/06/2020,
petitioner No.2 was the only person taking care of Sushant Singh
Rajput and she had administered the medicine mentioned in the
Dr.Tarun Kumar's prescription without supervising the doses and
quantity of medicines. There are no specifc allegations and
overt acts attributable to petitioner No.2 in the FIR. However, the
complaint primarily proceeds on the allegation that the banned
medicines prescribed by Dr.Tarun Kumar was at the behest of
petitioner No.1 who was having knowledge that the said banned
medicine and heavy doses of medicine may result into chronic
anxiety attack which may damage the health of Sushant Singh
Rajput.
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
40. So far as the contention of learned Senior Advocate that
the complaint is malicious and more in the nature of counter
blast as the same is fled at the instance of respondent No.2 who
is an accused in the FIR registered at the instance of the late
actor's father, having gone through the complaint and the
materials enclosed scrupulously, we are not persuaded to hold
that these allegations can be substantiated at this stage and
hence we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the
submission of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. It may
be that the relations between the petitioner and the respondent
No.2 are strained, but we cannot overlook the serious allegations
made in the complaint and materials on record and the fact that
the investigation is in progress and same is not yet concluded.
We may note that the FIR has already been transferred to the CBI
for investigation in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, and even learned Senior Advocate for the
respondent No.3 submitted that so far as FIR lodged by late
actor's father is concerned, the CBI is conducting investigation
meticulously and professionally without being hindered by any
external factor and would thoroughly look into each and every
aspect relating to the death of late actor in a fair and impartial
manner. Moreover, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for
the respondent No.3 that if the respondent Nos.1 or 2 had to
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
provide any information regarding the death of late actor, the
same should have been directly shared with the CBI for
necessary action at its end and the registration of the FIR by
Bandra Police Station on the said information was not required. In
any case, now that the respondent No.3 is investigating into the
matter and has submitted that the same will be done
meticulously and professionally without being hindered by any
external factor and Investigating Ofcer would thoroughly look
into each and every aspect relating to the death of late actor in a
fair and impartial manner, there is no reason why the respondent
No.3 should not carry out a meticulous investigation also based
on counter complaint lodged by the respondent No.2.
41. From the reading of the complaint and materials on
record, it is seen that the allegations are primarily against
petitioner No.1 and Dr. Tarun Kumar. The FIR appears to have
been registered against the petitioner No.2 only on suspicion
without attributing specifc overt acts qua petitioner No.2 that
she aided or abetted the alleged act of suicide by the late actor
Sushant Singh Rajput. Even the allegation in the FIR records
that the medicines might have been procured by petitioner No.2,
the consumption thereof which resulted in into his suicide. Based
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
only on the suspicion against petitioner No.2, it is alleged that
petitioner No.2 abetted the late actor's suicide. On overall
consideration we fnd that, there are vague and general
allegation against the petitioner No.2. There is no conversation
or whats-app chats at the relevant time within the proximate
date and time of alleged suicide by late actor Sushant Singh
Rajput between petitioner No.2 - Meetu Singh and him. In short,
there are no certain positive acts attributable to petitioner No.2 -
Meetu Singh showing involvement in the commission of ofences
within the proximity of alleged commission of suicide by the late
actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
42. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered
opinion that FIR No. 576 of 2020 i.e. counter complaint made by
respondent No.2 qua second petitioner deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside qua
petitioner No.2 - Meetu Singh.
So far petitioner No.1 - Priyanka Singh is concerned, we do
not fnd any merit in the present Petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Rule is disposed of in the above terms.
41. wpst 2712.20- final.doc
43. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie
in nature and confned to adjudication of the present case only.
Rejection of this Petition qua petitioner No.1 - Priyanka Singh
shall not be construed as an impediment to petitioner No.1 to
avail of an appropriate remedy in case Investigating Ofcer
decides to fle the chargesheet.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
Urmila Digitally signed
by Urmila P.
Ingle
P. Date:
2021.02.15
Ingle 21:22:25 +0530
