The court held that the police had not conducted a preliminary inquiry before filing the complaint against the petitioner, as required by law, and that the alleged offense fell under the definition of Exception-I of Sec. 375 IPC, which excludes medical procedures from the definition of rape. The court also held that there were no ingredients in the complaint to constitute the offense punishable under Sec. 376-E IPC, and that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in respect of Crime No.151 of 2016 of Ponnuru Urban Police Station, Guntur District, which was registered for an offence punishable under Sec. 376-E IPC.

2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that he is a doctor and running a hospital in the name of "Praja Vaidyasala" (People Hospital) with an object to serve the poor and weaker Sec. at a nominal fee. He is also the President of the A.P. Civil Liberties Committee, Guntur District, and he is aged about 60 years. In respect of a dispute between his distant relatives, when the petitioner approached T. Sandole Police Station and questioned the misbehavior of the police, they manhandled and abused him in the name of social status. Then, the petitioner submitted a representation to the higher authorities concerned seeking to initiate action against the misbehaved police officers. As there was no response, the petitioner filed a private complaint against the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the Inspector of Police and three other police officials in CFSR No.16 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, for the offences punishable under Ss. 120-B, 167, 211, 270, 220, 323, 342, 357, 506 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (p) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As a counter blast to it, the Sub- Divisional Police Officer and the Circle Inspector got filed the present complaint against the petitioner by the 2 nd respondent alleging that when the 2 nd respondent went to the hospital of the petitioner for treatment of abdomen pain, the petitioner touched her thighs and private parts and inserted his finger into her vagina and having been afraid of his behavior, the 2 nd respondent came out of the hospital and informed of the same to one Avula Yesubabu, who accompanied the 2 nd respondent to the hospital, and on his advice, the 2 nd respondent lodged the present complaint against the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel, representing Sri Vikas Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the 2 nd respondent/de facto complainant and he was falsely implicated in the present crime and as a counter blast to the private complaint filed by him against the police officers, with an ulterior motive the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Circle Inspector got filed the present complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Sec. 376-E IPC. The learned counsel submits that as a matter of procedure and practice, the female patients are physically examined in the presence of a female staff nurse in the doctor's room behind the curtain arranged for that purpose and the other patients would wait at the door steps of the room as well as inside the room for their turn, in view of rush and time constraint. However, the respondent police without looking into all these aspects registered the crime against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that there are no ingredients in the complaint to constitute an offence punishable under Sec. 376-E IPC. Sec. 376-E IPC illustrates that whoever previously convicted of an offence punishable under Sec. 376 or Sec. 376-A or Sec. 376-D and is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable under any of the said Ss. shall be punished with imprisonment for life. Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner has never been convicted of anyone of the said offences.

i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the International standard Gynecology Test Books, pelvic examination is necessary for the patient of severe abdomen pain and lower abdomen pain. Non-conducting of such examination and treating the pa