In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 13297 of 2008 Date of Decision:19-01-2009 Dr. Sangeeta Singh ---Petitioner versus State of U.T., Chandigarh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms. Supriya Jaswal,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sukant Gupta, APP for U.T.Chandigarh. SABINA, J.(Oral) Petitioner-Dr.Sangeeta Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the First Information Report No. 142 dated 28.9.2005 under Section 5(3) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as 'the MTP Act') and Section 306, 109 of the Indian Penal code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was earlier running a Nursing Home in Sector-42, Chandigarh. She shifted her Nursing Home to H.No. 323, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. A certificate of approval vide which Sangeeta Nursing Home, (H.No. 323, Sector-21A, Chandigarh) has been approved for the purpose of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971) has also been placed on the file(Annexure P-1). Petitioner had also furnished information at the time of her change of address and receipt in this regard was dated 12.4.2004(Annexure P-9). A list of existing MTP centers approved under Crl. Misc. No. M- 13297 of 2008 -2- revised MTP Act in Chandigarh, as released by the Department of Health, is also attached with the petition as Annexure P-3. In the said list, name of the petitioner is shown at Sr.No. 18. Ruchi had approached the petitioner for an abortion and thereafter she committed suicide. Ruchi had left a suicide note (Annexure P-6) as per which she has committed suicide as she was unable to bear the mistake committed by her. She could not bear the shame and insult brought on her by H (Harry @ Hari Ram). Thus, in the present case, Ruchi had approached the Nursing Home, run by the petitioner, for an abortion and thereafter feeling ashamed of her relationship with H (Harry @ Hari Ram) she committed suicide. Petitioner had no role to play in this regard. She had merely conducted an abortion with regard to which the deceased had furnished the requisite consent form dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner was earlier running a duly approved Nursing Home unde the MTP Act in Sector 42, Chandigarh which was later on shifted to Sector 21, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Lakhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 104, wherein it was held in paras 12 and 19 as under:- “12. The observations made above leave no manner of doubt that the wholesome jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be narrowed, confined or put in a strait-jacket. This inherent power can always be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The only constraint on the High Court is that since the power under this section is very wide, it should be exercised with great care and and caution. On the other hand, the court should not shy away from exercising this Crl. Misc. No. M- 13297 of 2008 -3- power when the accused persons are being persecuted in the guise of prosecution. Proceedings initiated and continued for oblique motives or to wreak vengeance on the other party are liable to be quashed. Proceedings are also liable to be quashed if even on the allegation being accepted in toto, prima facie no offence could be made out. 19. It, thus, become fairly evident that the court have consistently put an end to criminal proceedings which are an abuse of the process of Court. At the initial stage, at the summoning stage and even after charges have been framed, the High Court has the inherent power to quash proceedings and to pass such orders as are necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a non- obstante clause to the effect that nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit the powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, filing of the charge-sheet in Court does not in any manner affect the amplitude of the wholesome jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only rider being, that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof” In view of the facts of this case, continue of the proceedings on the basis of the FIR, in question, against the petitioner, would be misuse of process of law. Proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.142 dated Crl. Misc. No. M- 13297 of 2008 -4- 28.9.2005 under Section 5(3) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Section 306, 109 of the Indian Penal code and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 19, 2009 PARAMJIT