Allowed

Dr Sudhakara G v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2023CRL.P/2561/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Ss. 354, 354(A) IPC against petitioner accused of outraging modesty of a female patient, ordering quashment based on petitioner's exoneration in departmental enquiry where allegations were found unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C.No.803/2020 pending before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady quashed.

Dr Sudhakara G Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34938 CRL.P No. 2561 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2561 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. SUDHAKARA G, S/O JAYARAMA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT GOWRIJALU HOUSE, NELYADI VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK – 574 229.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

PRIYASHRI, D/O SHEENAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT KOTHODY HOUSE, KALENJA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 216.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.803/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADI REGISTERED BY THE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:34938 CRL.P No. 2561 of 2021

¶17

BELTHANGADI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 354, 354(A)(1)(i) OF IPC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The second respondent lodged the FIR with the jurisdictional police alleging that when she visited the Government hospital for treatment, the petitioner/accused who was working as Dentist in the Government Hospital, misbehaved while treating her and outraged the modesty. The police after investigation laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A), 1(A) of IPC.

¶21

The learned Magistrate, after accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the very same set of charges, the Government had initiated departmental enquiry, and the enquiry officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted a report stating that the charge against the petitioner herein was not proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and exonerated the petitioner of the charge leveled against him. Hence, he submits that the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. In support, he place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:34938 CRL.P No. 2561 of 2021

¶25

vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. A.L.Jayaramu vs. State of Karnataka and others (Writ Petition No.19700/2018, D.D.27.07.2021) .

¶26

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State submits that, merely because the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, it would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in criminal cases. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in 2012 (9) SCC 685 .

¶27

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

Admittedly, against the similar set of charges, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner/accused is that when the complainant visited the Government hospital for treatment, the petitioner/accused who was working as Dentist in the Government Hospital, misbehaved while treating her and outraged her modesty.

¶29

The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report stating that the allegations against the petitioner herein have not been proved and the Disciplinary

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:34938 CRL.P No. 2561 of 2021

¶32

Authority accepted the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and exonerated the petitioner herein of the charges leveled against him.

¶33

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) has held that in case of exoneration, however, on mertis where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) which was rendered without reference to the decision in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bangal reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 . cannot be said to be binding, moreso, when the decision in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) is a later one.

¶34

Hence, in view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), I am of the considered view that the petitioner having been exonerated in the departmental enquiry on merits, it would be an abuse of process of law to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, since the probability of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36