AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner is a practising Doctor who is mainly aggrieved by the imputations made by the 3rd respondent while initiating criminal prosecution alleging offence u/s 376 IPC. The petitioner is presently working as Urologist in the West Fort High Tech Hospital, Poonkunnam, Thrissur. During the period from 1994 to 31.7.2011, he was working in the same post at Daya Hospital, Thrissur and before that from 23.3.1983 to 25.12.1990, he was working as Urologist under Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia. He settled at Poonkunnam during 1994 in a rented house.
The 3rd respondent herein was working as a house maid in the house of the petitioner. Her complaint is that in 1975, she was only 13 years and she was subjected to sexual abuse by the petitioner during different periods. The first pregnancy was terminated and at the age of 23 years she again got pregnant from the petitioner and delivered a female child by name Santhi. After the delivery, she was given appointment in the Medical Central, Thrissur (presently Daya Hospital). Therein also sexual abuse continued and she became pregnant for the 3rd time in 2001, which was aborted at Aswini Hospital, Thrissur. Even though she has married one Unni, knowing that she is pregnant, he deserted her on the same day.
Allegation is that sexual abuse continued in the Daya Hospital and thereafter she was terminated from service. Annexure I is the copy of the First Information Statement. The police registered a crime as Crime No. 616/2011 and Annexure II is the copy of the final report. The charge is laid u/s 376 and 506(i) IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the statement of the mother of the 3rd respondent, namely Annexure III, the statement of the brother of the 3rd respondent as Annexure IV and a copy of the school admission register produced as Annexure V submitted that this is a case where the petitioner is being harassed at the hands of the 3rd respondent and there is no truth in the allegation. It is submitted that Annexure I itself imrobabilise the entire version and it is only a fitment of imagination by the 3rd respondent. It is also submitted that the attempt is to malign the reputation of the petitioner without any real basis and my attention is invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, . It is submitted that the Apex Court as per the judgment quashed a complaint in exercise of the power u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. in a matter like this, wherein it was found as frivolous and malafide. It is also submitted that the petitioner is prepared himself to subject to a DNA test; but the investigating officer has not accepted the said request and thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint before the Government as per Annexure VI to change the investigating agency.
The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that apart from the criminal case other proceedings are also pending before the Family Court and before the civil court.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
Of course, various aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner will have to be considered. But the question is whether at this stage, this Court can interfere in a matter like this, where serious allegations of sexual abuse have been raised against the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed on the undue delay, inconsistent versions between the statement of the 3rd respondent as well as her mother, the entry with regard to the name of the father of the child in Annexure V as Unni and other factors. Of course, in a fit case, the proceedings can be quashed by this Court. But the said power can be exercised only if on a reading of the FI statement, no offence is made out. The petitioner has raised various contentions. But as of now the charge has been laid. If the complaint is regarding the improper investigation requiring a further investigation, the petitioner can invite the attention of the court u/s 173(8) Cr. P.C. in the matter. I am not satisfied that this Court can quash the proceedings by invoking the power u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. at this stage. But the petitioner will have the remedy to approach the concerned court at the appropriate stage by filing an application for discharge, which will be duly considered by the Court on its merits.
The Crl. M.C. is accordingly disposed of.