Dr. Bindeshwari Prasad Chourashiya v. The State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, Advocate : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate ….. By the Court:-

2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 825 of 2017 and the order dated

09.05.2018 passed in that case, by which the learned Magistrate has Cr.M.P. No.1451 of 2019 1 (2025:JHHC:12604) found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.1 being the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, posted at Sadar Hospital, Koderma and the petitioner no.2 being the Deputy Superintendent at Sadar Hospital, Koderma made gestures and intending that such gestures to be seen by the complainant; who is a female doctor and such gestures were intended to insult the modesty of the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue of summons against the petitioners.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and the inquiry witnesses are interested witnesses. It is next submitted that the complainant failed to turn up in the Women’s O.P.D. at Sadar Hospital, Koderma on 02.06.2017 and 09.06.2017. It is further submitted that the complainant is running a private clinic. It is next submitted that the petitioners wrote a letter to the Police Station In- charge, Koderma informing the complainant was on unauthorized leave after 30.05.2017 and did not attend her roster duty on 02.06.2017 and 09.06.2017 and running her private clinic on those dates and based upon the same, the F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code vide Koderma P.S. Case No. 115 of 2017 has been registered and this Cr.M.P. No.1451 of 2019 2 (2025:JHHC:12604) complaint case has been filed for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners to pressurize them.

5. In support of her case, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 248 wherein in the facts of that case; as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came to the inevitable conclusion that mala fides were involved, apart from the applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that that case appears to be of that nature and falls under Category (7) indicated in the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deo Lakhan Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, in Criminal Appeal No. 2293 of 2011 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3923 of 2006 dated 30.11.2011 wherein in the facts of that case, when no reason was assigned or explained by the complainant for the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. or filing a complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of that case held that the unexplained delay of three days was fatal to that case and in that case, even though the injured victim allegedly sustained injuries on his right toe but he did not go to the hospital to get him examined, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the prosecution of the appellant before the Supreme Court, who has already demitted office, would tantamount to abuse of process of law and in the facts of that case, quashed and set aside the criminal prosecution. Hence, Cr.M.P. No.1451 of 2019 3 (2025:JHHC:12604) it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of voyeurism besides making gestures which could be seen by the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty; as the complainant was not giving in to the advances made by them, against her with intent to intrude upon the privacy of her. It is next submitted that the very fact that for a simple reason of remaining absent on a day assigned to the complainant in an O.P.D. and on the alleged ground that the complainant attends a private clinic, a criminal case under Section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been instituted against the complainant, goes to show the misuse of power on the part of the petitioners for making an all-out effort to pressurize the female doctor, to giving in to their advances and this only corroborates the case of the complainant and thus the institution of a false and frivolous case against the complainant, cannot be treated as a ground for treating this case being, for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation in the complaint, as well as the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation, as also the statement of the inquiry witnesses, against the petitioners of having Cr.M.P. No.1451 of 2019 4 (2025:JHHC:12604) made gestures, which could be seen by the complainant, with intention to insult the modesty of the complainant female doctor, who was not giving in to the advances made by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made against the petitioners are sufficient to prima facie constitute the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the order dated 09.05.2018 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 825 of 2017 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, warrants interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th April, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.1451 of 2019 5