Death Not Under Normal Circumstances: Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Suspended Judge In Dowry Death Case; Directs CBI Probe
The Patna High Court noted that the deceased was suffering from Amenorrhea and intermittent vomiting for two months which are indicative of abdominal tuberculosis and that no medical paper has been filed by the Petitioner to show that he took proper care.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a suspended Judicial Officer in a Dowry Death case and handed over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Court was deciding a Writ Petition filed by the suspended Judge in the cadre of Bihar Judicial Service, seeking to quash the case against him.
A Single Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, “On due consideration of the medical reports and the observation of this Court upon examination of the same, suggest that the wife of the petitioner died of abdominal tuberculosis. Therefore, the medical documents amply show that death of the deceased did not occur otherwise than under normal circumstances.”
The Bench took note of the fact that the deceased was suffering from Amenorrhea and intermittent vomiting for two months which are indicative of abdominal tuberculosis and that no medical paper has been filed by the Petitioner to show that he took proper care of the disease from which his wife was suffering during the said two months before being medically examined by the doctor.
Senior Advocate Nivedita Nirvikar represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate C.S. Sinha and Advocate Akhilesh Dutt Verma represented the Respondents.
Case Background
The marriage of the informant’s daughter (deceased) was solemnized with the Petitioner in May 2022. She died in August 2023 and after her death, a Complaint was lodged based on which a case under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered. It was alleged that after the lapse of one month of marriage of the informant’s daughter, the Petitioner along with his parents and sister, started assaulting the deceased on demand of balance amount of dowry of Rs. 20 lakhs. She was allegedly threatened that she would not be able to live at her matrimonial home peacefully if the said amount be not paid to the accused persons. It was further alleged that the amount of torture increased when the accused persons came to know that the deceased informed about the incident to the family members of her paternal home. It was also alleged that in the said marriage, the Petitioner and his family members demanded in all Rs. 50 lakhs as dowry, out of which Rs. 22 lakhs was paid in the form of a car valued at Rs. 20 lakhs and gold ornaments of Rs. 2 lakhs besides bronze and steel utensils etc.
Subsequently, the informant got an information that her daughter was admitted to a private nursing home with the history of intermittent vomiting since two months with severe left sided periumbilical pain. The patient had history of loose motion and vomiting from two days back from the date of her admission. She was diagnosed with abdominal tuberculosis on the basis of an ultra sonography report done from an institute outside the said nursing home and hypovolaemic shock. After two days, she died in the hospital and hence, the informant alleged that the Petitioner and his family members committed murder of his daughter on demand of dowry. Therefore, the Petitioner was before the High Court, seeking quashment of FIR.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “I am not unmindful to note that there are contradictions with regard to timings of ultra sonography and ADA test and medical examination of the patient by Dr. Astik. However, it is ascertained from the prescription issued by Dr. Astik at 12.30 p.m. that he consulted USG report and ADA test report and prescribed medicines used for treatment of tuberculosis.”
The Court said that the police did not register any case on the basis of fard beyan of the informant for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).
“Had she been medically treated at the outset of the onset of Amenorrhea and intermittent vomiting, her death could have been avoided. This prima facie shows negligence on the part of the petitioner and his family members, for which he may be held liable for committing offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code”, it added.
The Court remarked that it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate as to whether rash and negligent act is preceded with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death and in such case, Section 304 part II of the IPC will be applicable. It further said that if rash and negligence act is preceded by real intention on the part of the wrong doer to cause death, Section 302 of the IPC will be applicable.
“The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in series of cases that the culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, can include rash or reckless driving on a public road with knowledge of the dangerous character and probable impact of the act resulting in death”, it noted.
The Court also observed that if the Petitioner fails to produce any medical document to show that he took proper care and measures at least before two months of the death of his wife, when she complained of Amenorrhea with intermittent vomiting, it is suggestive of gross negligence on the part of the Petitioner.
“If during investigation, it is found that the negligence by the petitioner was attributed with the knowledge of the consequence, he may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 part II. … In view of my above finding, I have no other alternative but to hold that in the instant case, the F.I.R. being Alam Ganj P. S. Case No. 747 of 2023, dated 18th August, 2023, cannot be quashed”, it held.
The Court concluded that the Judicial Order prevails over the Administrative Order and when by virtue of a Judicial Order the Petitioner was directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the said order remains valid up to the Supreme Court, he must surrender and subsequent to his surrender, he may take appropriate action in accordance with law.
“The direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be flouted under the garb of an administrative order passed by this Court on 10th of September, 2024”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Investigating Officer to hand over the case to the CBI and ordered the Petitioner to immediately surrender.
Cause Title- Pratik Shail @ Pratik Sail v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.181 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nivedita Nirvikar and Advocate Madhumay Madhup.
Respondent: Senior Advocate C. S. Sinha, Advocates Akhilesh Dutt Verma, and Ravi Bhardwaj.
