'She Made An Attempt To Kill Her Own Child': MP HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Woman For Throwing Toddler On The Floor In Courtroom During Maintenance Case Hearing

The Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a woman who was charged under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code following an incident in 2022 where she allegedly threw her own child on the floor during a courtroom proceeding regarding maintenance from her husband.

A Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia highlighted the severity of Patel's actions, stating that she had no authority to subject her child to such violence. The Court said, “Throwing a 13 months old child on the floor by itself would amount to an attempt to murder and throwing a paperweight towards his head would further aggravate the situation”

The Court added, “it is clear that applicant was creating all source of ruckus in the court. She made an attempt to kill her own child. Only a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was going on. If the applicant was not convinced with any order passed by the court, then she had an opportunity to assail the same before the higher Court but she cannot pressurize the court to pass an order in her favour. Furthermore, she has no authority to throw her child on the floor of the court room and to throw a paperweight towards her child with a clear intention to kill him.”

Advocate Bheem Choudhary appeared for the Petitioner and Deputy Government Advocate Swati Aseem George appeared for the Respondent.

Her counsel argued that the FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure by a practicing lawyer following a previous incident. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the facts of the case revealed a distressing situation. It noted that petitioner had thrown her child on the floor, blaming him for her troubles, and had even attempted to strike him with a paperweight.

The Court also highlighted petitioner's disruptive behavior during the courtroom proceedings, noting that she had been issued a notice under Section 12 of the Court of Contempt Act for her conduct. Despite the Presiding Officer's instructions to pick up the child, Patel refused to do so and did not attempt to console him.

The Court concluded that the FIR against petitioner was not an afterthought and was not false. The Court said, “it cannot be said that FIR which has been lodged by the complainant against the applicant, according to which, the applicant went to the chambers of the Advocate of her husband and committed an offence cannot be said to be an afterthought and false. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no sympathetic view can be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the case”

Cause Title: X v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Click here to read/download Order