LEBY SAJEENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question as to whether the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 2017 (the MHA), can have retrospective operation. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate direction or order quashing Ext.P3 final report in C.C.No.2585/2016 on the file of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.2585/2016, in which she is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 309 IPC. Her husband, a sitting MLA, was contesting in the election. While so, one of his opponents created and circulated an audio clipping which contained the petitioner's edited conversations. Her conversations at various times were edited and made into an audio clipping which highly damaged the election prospects of her husband and was highly defamatory to the petitioner. Due to this, she was under severe stress and hence had consumed an overdose of sleeping bills.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Sec. 115 of the MHA submitted that proceeding with the criminal case would be a clear abuse of the process of law and hence the final report is liable to be quashed. In support of the argument, reference was made to the dictums in Naveed Raza v. State of Kerala, (Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2019); Pratibha Das v. State of Orissa, 2019 ICO 2445; Simi C.N. v. State of Kerala, 2022(3) KHC 346; Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, ; State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, 1985 Crl.L.J.931; P.Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1844; Smt.Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946 and State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Gian Singh, AIR 1999 SC 3450.