Partly allowed

Meherangiz M. Davar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2013WP/506/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a clinical psychologist involved in matrimonial litigation. While the proceedings against one petitioner were quashed due to lack of authorship, the order stayed proceedings against the other for issuing a report by a non-qualified person that implicated the respondent's mental health.

What did the court decide?

Process for forgery against Smt. Minnu Bhonsle quashed. Process against Smt. Davar stayed up to August 7, 2013.

Meherangiz M. Davar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp506, 839-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.506 OF 2013

¶5

Ms. Meherangiz M. Davar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.839 OF 2013

¶7

Dr. (Mrs). Minnu Rajan Bhonsle .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. D. J. Kakalia a/w. Mr. Ashwin Thool & Ms. Paresh Patkar I.b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. A. R. Patil, A.P.P.for Respondent No.1 – State.

¶10

Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b. Mr. M. G. Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶12

DATED : JULY 9, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard both the learned counsel.

¶15

2 Both petitions are taken up together as the issue involved is identical and common order dated 16^th December,

¶16

1/9

¶17

wp506, 839-13

¶18

2012 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of issuing process for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469 and 500 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) read with Section 34 of I.P.C, is questioned.

¶19

3 Petitioners have approach this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P. C., by passing requisite revisional remedy under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Basically, High Court should be slow and loath in entertaining such exercise. Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is thus straightway invoked. Again the facts which are discussed hereinafter, projected by the parties are hazy, not clear. There could not be a concrete opinion as to the genuineness of documents hence, the jurisdiction should be used with caution.

¶20

4 The original complainant (respondent no.2) Dr. Londhe was referred to clinical diagnosis by petitioner Dr. Minnu (W.P. No.839 of 2013) with his wife to petitioner Smt. Davar (W.P.No.506 of 2013) coupled was interviewed by Smt. Davar. A provisional psychological evaluation report was handed over to respondent no.2 which he feels perse defamatory, distorted

¶21

2/9

¶22

wp506, 839-13

¶23

and a forgery. A letter was addressed by the advocate for the respondent to petitioners Ms. Meherangiz Press (Smt. Davar) and Smt. Minnu Bhonsle, dated 11^th September, 2012 same was replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 14^th September, 2012.

¶24

The provisional report was without legal authority, legal competence, as she does not possess requisite qualification of a psychiatrist. The respondent felt, Smt. Davar was fully aware that she was not medically qualified to make such psychiatric diagnosis.

¶25

5 A complaint petition was moved before the learned Magistrate being case No.328/SW/2012 and as stated above process was issued for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 469 and 500 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶26

6 Both the learned counsel extensively read the complaint petition. The report of Smt. Davar was interpreted in the manner it suited to them.

¶27

7 Before adverting to other details in the petition of

¶28

3/9

¶29

wp506, 839-13

¶30

Smt. Davar, it is explicit that role of Minnu Bhosale in the entire report and meeting is quite difficult to analyze. Barring referring respondent no.2 Dr. Londhe or his wife, no active role

¶31

in either defamatory act or issuing false certificate is attributed. Reference to a jointly signed reply letter dated 14^th September, 2012 if read from any angle, will not involve with any criminality against Smt. Minnu Bhonsle (in Writ Petition No.839 of 2013). This is more so, in paragraphs 4 and 5 it is quoted as under:

¶32

“4 The psychological tests are always recommended to help the client have insight into areas of their personality that they could work on for their own personal growth and for no other purpose, it is therefore unfortunate that it has been used in a Court of Law.

¶33

5. We also accept that a qualified Psychiatrist's evaluation of the client would naturally supersede the report in question. Therefore if the qualified psychiatrist disagrees with the report, it can be set aside.”

¶34

Thus, in unequivocal terms it was accepted that the qualified psychiatrist's evaluation of the client would naturally

¶35

4/9

¶36

wp506, 839-13

¶37

supersede the report in question. This approach of Smt. Minnu Bhonsle, would not, attract criminal prosecution. There was no criminal intention in any manner to disrupt respondent no.2 or to ensure issuing certificate of false, forged documents. There was no misrepresentation or criminal act associated in dealing with the respondent no.2 or his wife. She is not author of report. Consequently, process to the extent of writ petitioner Smt. Minnu Bhonsle (W.P.No.839/2013) is quashed and set aside.

¶38

8 Now turning to the case propagated by Smt. Davar (W.P.No.506/2013) is concerned, she does not dispute of issuing the report, which has erupted the controversy in matrimonial life of respondent no.2. She examined, diagnosed and then gave the report. Even if the report is called as a provisional report, its effect has apparently caused respondent to face proceedings before the Family Court for divorce.

¶39

9 Learned counsel for the applicant Smt. Davar says, at no stretch of imagination, she has asserted to be a psychiatric she was a clinical psychologist and she was expected to diagnose

¶40

5/9

¶41

wp506, 839-13

¶42

mental health problems which she has carried, and impressions on the tests conducted on Dr. Londhe were given by her.

¶43

10 It may be correct as has been stated by the learned counsel, impression in respect of intelligence of Dr. Londhe referred either in petition or in the certificate (Report), is having a relevance to a psychiatric phenomena or it has nothing to do with intelligence level. It was a psychological level which Smt. Davar felt to have carried. However, these aspects are matters of defences as reading the provisional certificate from any angle, it generates an impression that it was not confined to intelligence level of Dr. Londhe from psychiatric or emotional perspective. It may not be a subterfuge at this stage, however, the inbuilt limitation in the certificate cannot be skipped away.

¶44

11 The interpretation provided by the test results are hypothesis about Dr. Londhe and were based on behavioural probabilities which expected to be confirmed using other clinical information before being accepted, however, no such clinical information was primarily gathered by Smt. Davar while issuing provisional certificate which has impulse of irreconcilable

¶45

6/9

¶46

wp506, 839-13

¶47

scuttling matrimonial life of respondent no.2.

¶48

12 In fact, certificate which Smt. Davar has issued, was

¶49

not by a competent person in the field as she does not possess such qualification under the statute. The impression which she has generated, could not be given effect in a legal sense and for which fact, petitioner knew for herself. However, the precaution which were expected for such clinical test to which the learned counsel gave repeated reference, are not adhered to in the professional certificate dated 31^st August, 2010. This has invited naturally a criminal action against author of certificate Smt. Davar.

¶50

13 The learned Judge has issued process as stated earlier for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469 and 500 of the I.P.C. Section 468 conceive whoever commits forgery intending that document shall be used for cheating would embrace forgery, has to face the prosecution. There was no intention to cheat or to commit forgery as the complainant (respondent no.2) felt. Section 469 deals with forgery for the purpose of harming reputation. The manner in which such

¶51

7/9

¶52

wp506, 839-13

¶53

certificate was issued by the Applicant Smt. Davar, had an impact to reputation of Respondent no.2 and she was consciously aware that these documents could be used for any of such purpose as the couple had contacted her for interview or examination, when the couple had clash of thoughts. It has been provisionally certified that respondent no.2 had immature regressive tendencies.

¶54

14 It was not expected from Petitioner Smt.

¶55

Davar/Press to express opinion about respondent to be Narcissistic, possibly hysteroid tendencies, tenancy to deflect blame, paranoid, sexual inadequacy. The report dated 19^th August, 2010 has been used in Divorce Petition by Respondent Londhe's wife. It is pertinent, pursuant to a letter from Dr. Londhe, Deputy Director General of Health Services, New Delhi by letter dated 9^th October, 2012 informed him, that psychiatrist having a qualification recognized by Medical Council of India is competent to do psychiatric Diagnosis. Thus, petitioner Smt. Davar/Press did not possess such requisite qualifications to express opinion by preparing forged certificate having long drawn ramification to life and reputation of respondent.

¶56

8/9

¶57

15 The process for offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. could not have been issued as the report was carried by respondent no.2 himself. It was not a publication or a communication for a public at large. Even exception under Section 499 IPC is sought, however, it cannot be extended, which amounts to defence. With all said and done primary impression is, there was no public communication from Smt. Davar in respect of her professional certificate of examination. Process would be to the extent of Sections 465, 469 of I.P.C. against Smt. Davar (petitioner in W.P.506 of 2013).

¶58

All points available to petitioner to be addressed

¶59

before learned Judge to challenge the proceedings, are kept open. Learned Judge would also exempt petitioner, on her application, from personal hearing.

¶60

16 Heard. The order of process is stayed up to

¶61

7^th August, 2013.

¶62

(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)

¶63

9/9

Meherangiz M. Davar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meherangiz M. Davar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapi Somnath Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede Vs Narayan Ramchandr Sorate and Anr.

Rajendra Kumar Kalicharan Varma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Badruddin P. Hirani and Anr. Vs Nanji Jivraj Karani and Anr.

Sheroor Mohandas Shetty and Ors. Vs Bharat Mohanlal Suchak and Anr.