Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 151
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, J
DR. AHANTHEM SANTA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. – Respondent
Crl.Petn. 59 / 2024
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s):Mr. D.K. Mishra, Sr.Adv with Mr. B. Prasad, Adv Dr. N. Mozika, Sr.Adv. with Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Khan, PP with Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP
The FIR lacked necessary allegations to constitute offences under Sections 75 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, warranting its quashing.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 75(2) and 76 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of sexual harassment and assault against a medical professional - FIR lacks necessary ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 75 and 76 - No evidence of unwelcome sexual advances or criminal force - Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a doctor, was accused in an FIR of inappropriate examination of a patient without proper consent or justification, leading to allegations of sexual harassment. The FIR was filed after the patient expressed discomfort regarding the examination.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR did not disclose any allegations that met the legal definitions of sexual harassment or assault, and thus quashed the FIR.
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR disclosed sufficient grounds for the alleged offences under Sections 75 and 76 of the BNS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR did not contain allegations that constituted the necessary elements of the offences charged, emphasizing that medical examinations must be justified and consensual.
Result: FIR dated 24-10-2024 quashed.
(JUDGMENT & ORDER)
By this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 24- 10-2024 in Rynjah PS Case No. 191 (10) 2024 under Section 75 (2)/76 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
1. The petitioner is a doctor by profession and was serving as Senior Professor and Head of the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and also the Dean at North Eastern Regional Institute of Health and Medical Science (NEIGRIHMS), Shillong at the time of filing of this petition.
2. On 24-10-2024, the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge Nongmensong Police Outpost alleging that on 23-10- 2024, at NEIGRIHMS Hospital, the petitioner had examined her inspite of the fact that she just came to show a report without looking and briefing on her report which was an ultrasound report and blood report. The petitioner literally asked the respondent No.2 to lie down for the examination whereby without using any hand glove he initiated to roll up her cloth and asked her to loosen them up in which he laid his hand in an uncomfortable way on her private parts. After that the petitioner did not prescribe her with any medicine, instead shared his personal contact number with her and asked her to meet him at any day whenever she visited the hospital and left the room in a hurry. The respondent No.2 requested for taking up her complaint as priority and for initiation of immediate action. The said FIR was forwarded to the Officer-In-Charge, Rynjah PS and was registered vide Rynjah PS Case No. 191(10) 2024 under Section 75 (2)/76 BNS for investigation in the matter. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this application before this Court seeking quashing of the case registered against him.
3. Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 23-10-2024 (Wednesday) at about 12:40 PM, the petitioner was in OPD (Room No.17) at NEIGRIHMS, which is the Gynecology and Obstetrics OPD as well as the Head of the Department of the Gynecology and Obstetrics at NEIGRIHMS. As the petitioner was about to leave his OPD to attend one official meeting, the respondent No.2 entered the OPD. The respondent No.2 was visibly agitated and stated that she was examined by the consulting doctor on 11-10-2024 and was prescribed some medicines as well as some tests and was asked to revisit with the reports. The OPD card disclosed that her visiting dates were scheduled on Thursday and Friday. As it was not the scheduled visiting day, the respondent No.2 was not able to meet the consulting doctor to show her reports. The respondent No.2 was agitated and was sent to Room No.17 i.e. HOD Office-cum-OPD. The petitioner in order to pacify and calm her down, perused the report in the presence of his personal assistant and also enquired about history of ailment of the respondent No.2. The petitioner noticed some abnormality in the report of the respondent No.2 and suspected possibility of Galactorrhea. After explaining the situation, the petitioner examined the respondent No.2 behind the screen for about 5 seconds and found no Galactorrhea. The petitioner, after noticing that the previous consulting doctor had prescribed correct medicine, left the OPD by informing the respondent No.2 that she could contact him in case of any medical emergency.
4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned FIR, even if accepted at its face value, do not make out any offence against the petitioner under Section 75 (2) and 76 BNS. He submits that none of the ingredients constituting offences under Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub- Section (1) of Section 75 has been disclosed in the FIR. He submits that there is no whisper in the FIR that the medical examination of the respondent No.2 was carried out by the petitioner with unwelcome and sexual overtures. He submits that the FIR does not even disclose that there was a demand or request for sexual favour by the petitioner. He a
