High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of a charge sheet. The court held that while Section 313 IPC offence might not lie, the facts likely attract Section 312 IPC, and proceedings could not be quashed without the case diary and full records.
Petition filed for quashing of charge sheet was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA
FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931
Crl.M.C.No. 1067 of 2006(C)
-------------------------CP.8/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR
PETITIONER: 7TH ACCUSED
DR.UNNIKRISHNAN, "LAKSHMI", KUNNUMPURAM, A.R.NAGAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.HEMA, J.
Crl.M.C.No.1067 of 2006
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009
ORDER
This petition filed under Section 482(2) of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet made against the petitioner, alleging offences under Sections 346, 347, 313, 376(g), 506(1) read with section 34 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)V of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989).
2
Crl.M.C.No.1067 of 2006
complainant. From the grounds raised, in this petition, it appears that the defacto complainant had an opportunity to raise protest against abortion, since she was all alone in the operation theatre and persons who accompanied her were not there in the theatre. If the abortion was under compulsion by those who accompanied the defacto complainant, she could have brought such fact to the notice of the petitioner, in which case, the pregnancy would not have been aborted. Therefore, offence under Section 313 I.P.C. will not lie, is the contention.
3
Crl.M.C.No.1067 of 2006
be liable for offence under said section, if the offence alleged in Section 312 I.P.C. (ie., miscarriage) is committed, without the consent of the woman. Though the accused raised a contention that there was no objection from the woman and that there is nothing to show that abortion was effected without consent, a reading of Section 312 I.P.C. shows that consent is totally irrelevant for constituting offence section 312 I.P.C.
4
Crl.M.C.No.1067 of 2006
312 I.P.C. will show that if voluntarily causes miscarriage and if such miscarriage is not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, he will be liable for punishment under section 312 I.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.1067 of 2006
5
discharge, if he so advised, in which event a decision may be taken untrammeled by any of the observations made in this order, especially, since the relevant documents are not before that court.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
Skj.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
Whether the cause of action is barred for the offence under Section 313 IPC.
Whether sufficient material is disclosed on face of records to quash the proceedings.
8 provisions across 3 enactments
7TH ACCUSED
STATE OF KERALA
K.HEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
