KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Dr. (Smt.) Anitha Patil – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.8213 of 2019
Decided on 24.8.2022
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 6 and 21 – Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Section 75 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 363A, 370A(1), 326, 365, 367, 370, 465, 468, 376 and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Forcible sex change operation on male child – Quashing petition – Petitioner is a Doctor who is alleged to have conducted sex change operation – Allegations are that operation has been conducted without consent of child and that he could not have concern that since he was a minor at that point of time – These are matters which are required to be strictly left for trial with all defences left open for petitioner to be agitated before trial Court – There are no grounds which have been made out for quashing of proceedings – As such, reserving liberty to petitioner to raise all defences before trial Court, criminal petition dismissed. (Paras 12 to 15)
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:—
(a) “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the Complaint dated 11.02.2018 lodged by the second respondent the certified copy of which is produced as Annexure - A to the Criminal Petition.
(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR in Crime No.59/2018 registered by K.R.Pet Town Police Station pending before the Additional District and Session Judge, Mandya, the certified copy of which is produced as Annexure B to the Criminal Petition.
(c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash Charge Sheet in Crime No.59/2018 dated 05.01.2019 filed by K.R.Pet Town Police Station as against this Petitioner for offences punishable under Secs. 363, 363A, 370A(1), 326, 365, 367, 370, 465, 468, 376, 34 of IPC, Sec.6, 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 the certified copy of which is produced as Annexure D to the Criminal Petition.
(d) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash criminal proceedings numbered as Spl.C.No.14/2019 for offences punishable under Secs. 363, 363A, 370A(1), 326, 365, 367, 370, 465, 468, 376, 34 of IPC, Sec.6, 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 pending before the I Additional District and Session Judge, Mandya, as against the petitioner herein.
(e) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the 3rd respondent CID from proceeding with the further investigating of the case as against this Petitioner in Crime No.59/2018, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. A complaint had been filed on 11.02.2018 by the second respondent, the grand mother of one Chandan Kumar stating that the petitioner along with several others, had conducted a forcible sex change operation on Chandan Kumar, changing his sex from male to female by kidnapping him etc. Apart therefrom, there are various allegations which have been made against the different accused including offences under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’ for short).
3. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been laid including that the petitioner, who is accused No.4 therein.
4. Ms. Vijetha Nayak, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a Doctor, who has wrongfully been implicated in the matter. She submits that the petitioner has not performed any operation as alleged or otherwise. She further submits that no criminal prosecution could be initiated against the petitioner, who is a Doctor, without following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2005 (6) SCC 1, more particularly, paragraphs 51 and 52 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
“51. We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasize the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefers recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against.
52. Statutory Rules or Executive Instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or
Defence of accused cannot be considered at the time of hearing quashing petition.
The distinction between medical negligence and criminal offences, and the need for obtaining a credible opinion from another doctor in cases of criminal rashness or negligence alleged against a docto....
The court emphasized the requirement of gross negligence and high recklessness to fasten criminal liability on doctors.
Competent medical opinion is necessary in cases of medical negligence, and the court emphasized the need for care and caution in the interest of society when prosecuting doctors for offenses of crimi....
The need for a credible opinion from another competent doctor to support the charge of negligence before entertaining a private complaint against a doctor and the inability to fasten vicarious liabil....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a preliminary inquiry into allegations of medical negligence, the requirement for prima facie evidence before entertaining a priva....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for expert opinion before initiating criminal proceedings against doctors and the potential abuse of process of law in cases of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a private complaint of medical negligence must be supported by prima facie evidence from another competent doctor, as per the legal princip....
Medical professionals can only be held criminally liable for negligence if gross negligence is established. The presence of a co-accused in a procedure does not automatically imply responsibility wit....
Criminal liability for medical negligence requires proof of a higher degree of negligence than mere error of judgment, as established in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.