Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Hafeez Rahman P. A. , S/o. P. K. Abdul Rahman – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
(A. Badharudeen, J.)
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings in S.C. No.283/2022 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’ for short], Ernakulam, arose out of Crime No.313 of 2021 of Thrikkakara Police Station, as against the petitioner. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, in detail and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records and decision placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also referred the provisions pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing quashment.
3. In this matter, the crime was registered by Thrikkakara Police and after investigation Final Report filed alleging that the 1st accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 449, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 354A(I)(i), 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 4(2) read with 3, 6(1) read with 5(l)(j)(ii), 10 read with 9(l), 12 read with 11(iv) of the POCSO Act and under Sections 3(1
The court ruled that a doctor performing an MTP in good faith to protect a minor's health is not liable for illegal termination or destruction of evidence if no legal mandate exists for preservation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the protection afforded to medical practitioners for ac....
Rape - Termination of pregnancy - Right of privacy of petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind best interest principle, petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for only with a view to save ....
Interpretation of procedural compliance under the MTP Act and IPC for abortion cases, affirming the need for proper legal protocols.
The court ruled that evidence did not establish medical negligence by the appellant, who acted in good faith under the MTP Act, leading to acquittal under Section 312 of IPC while being previously ac....
Medical practitioners cannot be held liable under the POCSO Act without substantial evidence proving knowledge of the victim's age and alleged crimes. Quashing of FIR emphasizes protection against fa....
The court affirmed the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21, allowing a minor victim of rape to terminate her pregnancy, emphasizing the importance of her consent and well-being.
A doctor cannot be held criminally liable under the POCSO Act for failing to report a minor's pregnancy if the victim misrepresents her age as 18 years, and mere suspicion is insufficient for prosecu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
