E-Paper
Bombay HC reserves order on plea filed by Sushant Singh Rajput’s sisters to quash FIR filed on Rhea Chakraborty’s plaint
On September 7, 2020, the police had registered an offence against Rajput’s sisters after Chakraborty alleged that the late actor was sent prescriptions given by a Delhi-based cardiologist
The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday reserved its order on the petition filed by late actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s sisters Priyanka Singh and Meetu Singh to quash a first information report (FIR) registered by Bandra police in September 2020, on the basis of a complaint lodged by actor Rhea Chakraborty.
The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice MS Karnik closed the petition for orders, observing that Rajput was a very good human being.
“Everybody liked him, especially the role played by him of [cricketer] Mahendra Singh Dhoni. You can make out from his face that he was a very sober and good human being,” said the judges.
On September 7, 2020, the police had registered an offence against Rajput’s sisters after Chakraborty alleged that Priyanka had on June 8 sent the late actor prescriptions given by a Delhi-based cardiologist Dr Tarun Kumar. The prescriptions contained psychotropic substances controlled under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and they were given without examining Rajput, Chakraborty had alleged. The consumption of the psychotropic substances in the prescriptions “may have caused and contributed to the suicidal death of the actor”, she further claimed.
The sisters then moved HC through advocate Madhav Thorat seeking the quashing of the FIR and claimed that the statements made in it do not make out any cognisable offence. It added that Chakraborty’s complaint was nothing but a feeble attempt on her part to scuttle investigations against her by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and blame Rajput’s family for his suicide as she was on the verge of being arrested by NCB. Chakraborty had been arrested by NCB later.
Their counsel, senior advocate Vikas Singh, submitted that there was gross delay in registering the offence, as Chakraborty was allegedly well aware of the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the late actor and Priyanka on June 8, but she lodged the complaint only on September 7.
Singh also pointed out that the Telemedicine Guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India permitted prescription of medicines even on first consultation, and there was nothing wrong in the prescription.
Singh asserted that the FIR registered by the police was non-est (non-existent) in the eyes of law for being second offence on the same cause of action, and thus, liable to be struck down on this ground as well. The senior advocate relied on the ruling in the Jacob Matthew’s case, in which the Supreme Court had held that an offence cannot be directly registered against a registered medical practitioner.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) supported the sisters by terming Chakraborty’s allegations “mostly presumptive and speculative in nature” and claimed that the FIR was “vitiated and bad in law” for being the second FIR on the same cause of action.
Senior advocate Devdatt Kamat, who represented Bandra police, maintained that there was no illegality in registering the offence. Kamat submitted that the prescription (sent by Priyanka to Rajput) was on the face of it a fabricated document. He said the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the late actor and Priyanka falsified the claim that the prescription was followed by online consultation. He pointed out from the documents that someone other than the late actor had gone to the Delhi-based hospital as an indoor patient and obtained the prescription.
With regards to the contention of the second FIR on the same cause of action, Kamat said the FIR in Bandra was in the nature of a counter complaint, countering the allegations levelled against Chakraborty in the FIR registered at Patna on the basis of a complaint by Rajput’s father.
He added that the Jacob Matthew’s case involved issues relating to complaints of medical negligence against doctors, and was thus not applicable to this matter.
Advocate Satish Maneshinde, who represented Chakraborty, insisted that the circumstances relating to Rajput’s death need to be investigated. He responded to the ground of delay in lodging the complaint, saying Chakraborty was aware of the messages exchanged between the late actor and Priyanka in June 2020 but Rajput had asked the actor to leave his home as she insisted that he should not take the illegally prescribed medicines.
However, Maneshinde said she realised that the medicines were actually procured and the consumption of the same could have led to Rajput’s untimely death only after certain other messages were leaked. So she accordingly lodged the complaint.
He submitted that the petition filed by Rajput’s sisters was premature as the case is handed over to the CBI, and if the agency finds no truth in Chakraborty’s complaint, it will file a closure report and urged the court to not foreclose the case.
He insisted on allowing investigation into Chakraborty’s allegations, contending that in a case of abetment to suicide, proximate reasons are most important, and as the prescription was of June 8 and the actor has ended his life six days later, it could be the most proximate reason behind his death.
