IN THE SUPREME COURT OFINDIA [Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)NO. OF 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: Priyanka Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors …Respondents Along With CRL.M.P. of 2021 (Application for Exemption from filing certified copy of Impugned order) PAPER – BOOK [FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE] ADVOCATE ON RECORD FOR THE PETITIONER: NITIN SALUJA INDEX RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SL. NO. Date of Record of Proceedings Pages 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 18. 19. 20. 21. INDEX S.N Particulars of documents Page No. of part Remark o to which it s belongs Part I Part II (content (Contai s of ns of Paper file Book) alone) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Court fees 1. O/R on Limitation A A 2. Listing Proforma A-1 – A2 A1 – A2 3. Cover page of paper-book A3 4. Index of Record of Proceedings A4 5. Limitation Report prepared by A-5 Registry 6. Defect List A-6 7. Note Sheet NS 1- 8. Synopsis and List of Dates B - Q 9. Impugned Order dated 1 – 15.02.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay 1 - 43 in W. P. (Crl) Stamp No. 2712/2020. 10. Special Leave petition along with affidavit. 44 - 74 11. Appendix. 75 12. ANNEXURE P-1: A true copy of the WhatsApp 76 - 78 messages sent by the relatives of Petitioner dated February 2020 along with a true typed copy. 13. ANNEXURE P-2: A true typed copy of the FIR No.211 of 2020, P.S. Rajiv 79 - 89 Nagar Dated 25.07.2020 14. ANNEXURE P-3: A true typed copy of the Transfer Petition (Crl.) 225 of 2020 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme 90 -150 Court by the Respondent No. 2 Dated 29.07.2020 15. ANNEXURE P-4: A copy of the judgment dated 151-185 19.08.2020 in Transfer Petition (Crl.) 225 of 2020 16. ANNEXURE P-5: The transcript of the relevant extract of the interview from 186 - 188 09:26 minutes to 14:55 minutes dated nil 17. ANNEXURE P-6: A true typed copy of the F.I.R. No.576/2020 dated 07.09.2020 189- 193 registered at Bandra P.S 18. ANNEXURE P-7: A copy of the Complaint dated 07.09.2020 signed by Inspector of the Respondent No. 1 is 194 - 209 along with a typed copy of the same. 19. ANNEXURE P-8: The true typed copy of Reply 210 - 262 filed by Respondent No. 2 in Writ petition no 2712/2020 . 20. ANNEXURE P-9: The True copy of reply filed by Respondent No. 3 in before 263 - 284 Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 10.10.2020 21. ANNEXURE P-10: A true copy of the Medical Council of India (Professional 285- 304 Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002 dated nil 22. ANNEXURE P-11: A copy of the Telemedicine 305- 348 Practice Guidelines dated nil 23. ANNEXURE P-12: A true copy of relevant excerpt 349 - 350 of Telepsychiatry Operational Guidelines, 2020 dated nil 24. ANNEXURE P-13: A true copy of the Public Notice 351 dated 11.04.2020 25. CRL.M.P No. of 20212020: Application for exemption from filing certified copy of 352 - 356 Impugned Order dated 15.02.2021 26. Filing Memo. 357 27. Vakalatnama 358 28. Memo of Parties 359 - 360 IN THE SUPREME COURT OFINDIA [Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OFINDIA [Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO__OF 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: Priyanka Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors …Respondents OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION 1. The Petition(s) is / are within time. 2. The Petition is not barred by time and there is delay of Nil days in filing the same against Order dated 15.02.2021 and petition for condonation of Nil days delay has been filed. 3. There is delay of _____ days in refilling the petition and Petitioner for condonation of Nil days delay in refilling has been filed. BRANCH OFFICER NEW DELHI: DATED:25.02.2021 LISTING PROFORMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box): Central Act:( Title) Criminal procedure code 1973, Constitution of India Section: Article 226 of the Constituion read with Section 482 of CrPC Central Rule:(Title) NA Rule No. (S): NA State Act: (Title) NA Section: II - A State Rule: (Title) NA Rule No. (S): NA Impugned Interim Order: (Date) 15.02.2021 High Court : (Name) IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Names of Judges: HMJ S.S Shinde ,HMJ M.S Karnik JJ Tribunal/Authority: (Name) NA 1. Nature of Matter: Criminal 2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No. 1 Priyanka Singh (b) e-mail ID: [email protected] (c) Mobile Phone Number: +91 9999422728 3. (a) Respondents: State of Maharashtra & Ors (b) E-Mail ID: NA (c) Mobile phone Number: NA 4. (a) Main category classification: 1418 (b) Sub classification: N/A 5. Not to be listed before: NA 6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & Case No similar matter is disposed. details:- (b) Similar pending matter with No similar matter is pending. case details: 7. Criminal Matters: Yes (a)Whether accused/convict has NA surrendered: (b) FIR No. 576/2020 (c) Police Station: Bandra Police Station, Mumbai (d) Sentence Awarded: N.A. (e) Sentence Undergone: N.A. 8. Land Acquisition Matter: N.A. (a) Date of Section 4 notification: NA (b) Date of section 6 notification: NA (c) Date of section 17 notification: NA 9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N.A. 10.Special Category(fors petitioner/ N.A. appellant only): Senior citizen > 65 N.A. SC/ST N.A. Women/child N.A. Disabled N.A. Legal Aid case N.A. In custody N.A. 11. Vehicle Number (In case of N.A. Motor Accident Claim Matters): Dated: 25.02.2021 (NITIN SALUJA) New Delhi ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER Drawn By: Advovate Varun Singh Advocate Akshay Dev B SYNOPSIS The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Final Order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Mumbai in Writ Petition Criminal stamp. No. 2712 of 2020 dismissing the quashing petition qua Petitioner under Article 226 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has overreached its power by examining allegations which were placed before Police through media reports. The present petition is one of the rarest of rare cases wherein the Complainant herself withdrawn her main case on 14.09.2020 and same has been stated by her on affidavit in reply filed by her before Hon’ble High Court. While, the Investigating agency, i.e. C.B.I., Respondent No. 3 herein, had also specifically held that registration of F.I.R. was manifestly illegal and without any jurisdiction. The affidavit of Respondent No.3 before the Hon’ble High Court also records that as per observation of this Hon’ble Court no second FIR could have been registered after the inquest proceedings by Maharashtra police was closed. Despite complainant as well as the prosecuting agency clearly stating that no case is made C out, the Hon’ble High Court has not quashed the second FIR which is without authority of law. The Hon’ble High Court also failed to observe that registration of FIR was also teeth in order passed by this Hon’ble Court in matter of Rhea Chakraborty Vs State of Bihar (Transfer Petition Crl. 225 of 2020) on 19.08.2020, wherein para 34 this Hon’ble Court had directed that Respondent No. 1 can only register the case arising out of inquest proceedings of late actor Sh. Sushant Singh Rajput. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred for quashing of the F.I.R. 576 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 registered against the Petitioner, on the basis of material discovered by the Respondent No. 2 through media networks etc. It is pertinent to note that entire case of Respondent No. 2 is based on Media Report which do not have any credibility as to the source or authenticity of such reports. Further, this Hon’ble Court in Dr. B. Singh Versus Union of India [(2004) 3 SCC 363] has specifically held that media report are not admissible in evidence, thus by no stretch of imagination it can be held that there is any case against Petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court failed to observe that delay in present FIR is of 91 days and same has been registered D without any preliminary inquiry as mandated by this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. &ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. This conduct of Respondent No. 1 shows that present FIR was registered hurriedly on same day without any inquiry and smacks of malice and vengeance as Respondent is herself accused in case of death of late actor Sh. Sushant Singh Rajput filed by father of Petitioner in FIR No. 241 of 2020 at P.S. Rajiv Nagar at Patna. These facts are extremely relevant as Maharashtra Police was extremely swift to register a FIR on the very same date i.e. 07.09.2020, the day on which the complaint was given by Respondent No.2 regarding an incident that occurred on 08.06.2020, whereas no such FIR was registered when the matter was being looked into by the Maharashtra Police during their inquest proceedings.