Saturday, 24 December 2022

Whether Doctor's Consultation Room is a Public Place?

 Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the consulting

room of the petitioner at the T.M. Hospital, Chavakkad. It can

never be termed as a public place or near public place.{Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.MC NO. 2322 OF 2018

DR.K.K.RAMACHANDRAN Vs  SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE  VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, 

PRESENT

 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

Dated:  20th day of December, 2022

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings

in C.C.No.2255/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Chavakkad (for short 'the court below').

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is

the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are punishable

under Sections 294(b) and 354 A of IPC.

3. The petitioner is a Paediatrician practicing at T.M.

Hospital, Chavakkad. The child of the 2nd respondent was a

patient of the petitioner. The alleged incident was taken place on

7.6.2017 at about 6 pm at the hospital when the 2nd respondent

brought her child to the petitioner for treatment. It is alleged

that, while treating the child, the petitioner misbehaved with the

2nd respondent by showing obscene action with his finger and

uttering obscene words against her.

4. I have heard Sri. Navneeth N. Nath, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned

Public Prosecutor. Even though notice has been served to the 2nd

respondent, there is no appearance.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the

materials collected during investigation are believed in its

entirety, no offence under Section 294(b) and 354 A of IPC are

attracted.

6. A reading of the FIS would show that the circumcision

of the son of the 2nd respondent was done at T.M. Hospital on

2.6.2017 by one Dr. Mahin. Since the child developed bleeding

from his penis, the 2nd respondent took the child to the hospital

on 7.6.2017 at 6 pm. The case of the 2nd respondent is that, the

petitioner attended the child at his consulting room and during

examination, when the child passed urine, the petitioner got

angry and showered abusive words against her which according

to her outraged her modesty.

7. In order to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the

following two ingredients are to be satisfied. (i) The offender

has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near

any public place and (ii) has so caused annoyance to others. If

the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the

song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it

caused no annoyance to others, no offence is committed.

8. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the consulting

room of the petitioner at the T.M. Hospital, Chavakkad. It can

never be termed as a public place or near public place. That

apart, in order to satisfy the definition of obscenity to attract

Section 294(b) of IPC, the words uttered must be capable of

arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers.

[See Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT

745)]. There is no case for the prosecution that the words

allegedly uttered by the petitioner aroused sexually impure

thoughts in the minds of the hearers. In these circumstances, I

am of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 294(b) of

IPC are not attracted.

9. Section 354A of IPC deals with sexual harassment and

punishment for sexual harassment. It reads as follows:

“354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for

sexual harassment(1) A man committing any of the

following acts--

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and

explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,

shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.”

A reading of the FIS would show that none of the above

ingredients are attracted. Hence, no purpose will be served in

proceeding further against the petitioner. Accordingly, all further

proceedings in C.C.No.2255/2017 on the file of the court below is

hereby quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed.


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment