Disposed

Dr Rabindra Nath Nag v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC6 Jan 2023CRR/173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision regarding rejection of discharge application. Full Bench set aside impugned order directing trial court to reconsider submissions on medical practitioner's liability for terminating pregnancy beyond legal age under PNDT Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside rejection of discharge application; trial court directed to consider defences before framing charge.

Dr Rabindra Nath Nag Vs State of West Bengal… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

06.01.2023 SL No.38 Court No.3 BR

¶2

Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court At Jalpaiguri

¶3

CRR 173 of 2021

¶4

In the matter of :Dr. Rabindranath Nag …. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das …. For the petitioner

¶6

Mr. Aditi S. Chakraborty,Ld. APP, Mr. Sourav Ganguly …. For the State

¶7

This criminal revision assails the order No. 51 dated 22^nd October, 2021 passed by learned Special Judge under POCSO Act in Special Case No. 2 of 2020.

¶8

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and the State respectively. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a medical practioner and with the consent of the elder sister of the victim the pregnancy of the victim girl was terminated at his nursing home but he has been implicated in this case for committing offence within the meaning of Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr. P C seeking discharge and by the order impugned learned Trial Court was pleased to reject the application. According to learned counsel for the petitioner quite rightly since the petitioner is a medical practitioner, who terminated the pregnancy with the consent of the guardian of the victim, there is hardly any room to implicate

¶9

¶10

him under Section 313 of the IPC. However, Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel representing the State has rightly pointed out that the pregnancy was of 28 to 30 weeks and under the P.N.D.T Act the doctor had no authority to terminate such pregnancy, it was done in violation of statute and thereby he has made himself culpable for committing offence within the meaning of P.N.D.T. Act.

¶11

Under such circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order impugned passed by learned Trial Court .

¶12

Learned Trial Court is directed to consider the submissions to be made by learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner – accused at the time of framing of charge and to make appropriate order in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶13

With these observations the criminal revision is disposed of.

¶14

Let a copy of the order be sent down to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action at the earliest.

¶15

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶16

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

Dr Rabindra Nath Nag v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Rabindra Nath Nag v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swajal Sarkar@Sajal Sarkar and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Om Prakash Prasad @ Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Ram Kishan Roy @ Ram Krishna Roy and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Nilu Siddique Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Laxmi Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

M. Haridos @ M Haridas Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.