The court underscored the necessity of trial evaluation of evidence gathered against the accused, affirming that inherent powers to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC do not apply.

O R D E R

The accused in C.C.No.50/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973(in short, ‘Cr.PC’), to quash the proceedings against him in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 02.09.2017, at about 2:00 pm, while the petitioner was working as Gynecologist in Malabar Medical College, he outraged the modesty of a lady, who was admitted in that hospital for abortion of pregnancy. It is alleged that the petitioner, with sexual instincts, pressed the breasts of that lady, and hugged her at the labour room of that hospital.

3. A Senior Civil Police Officer, holding charge of the SHO of Police, Atholi, registered this crime on 08.09.2017, on the basis of a complaint preferred by the husband of the victim lady. After the completion of the investigation, the SI of Police, Atholi, filed the final report, alleging the commission of offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860(in short, ‘ IPC '), by the petitioner.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the indictment against him in this final report is totally baseless, and that he did not commit any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. According to the petitioner, the de facto complainant might have preferred the complaint due to the ignorance and misunderstanding of the procedure involved in MTP. It is further stated that the final report has been laid without proper investigation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that, while he was treating the victim lady (CW1), for Medical Termination of Pregnancy at the labour room of Malabar Medical College, at about 2:00 pm, on 02.09.2017, he, with sexual motives, grabbed the breasts of that lady and hugged her. The misbehaviour in the above regard is said to have been revealed by the lady to her husband on 07.09.2017, as the reason for her refusal for approaching the same Doctor for the next consultation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is beyond the comprehension of ordinary prudence to think that a Gynecologist of the stature of the petitioner would resort to such a wretched act at the labour room of a hospital in the presence of the Nurses and House Surgeons, who were assisting him. To substantiate the above argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statements given by CW3 to CW6 to the Investigating Officer. Among the above witnesses, CW3 and CW5 were the duty Nurses, who attended the treatment given to the victim lady at the relevant time, and CW4 & CW6 were the House Surgeons who were said to have been there at the labour room, when the incident is alleged to have taken place. It is true that all the above witnesses had stated to the Investigating Officer that they did not see the petitioner misbehaving with the victim lady, while administering treatment to her for MTP on 02.09.2017. However, CW3, the duty Nurse as well as CW4, the House Surgeon, who were present there at the relevant time, had stated that they saw the petitioner pressing the breasts of the patient and asking her whether she is still feeding. According to CW4, the petitioner would have done so, since the patient might have complained about pain or swelling of her breasts. Therefore, the aforesaid statements given by CW3 & CW4 to the Investigating Officer would, to a certain extent, substantiate the allegation of the victim lady that the petitioner had pressed her breasts at the time of administering treatment for MTP. It is also pertinent to note that, if the above act on the