While mincing no words and making the legal position indubitably clear, the Kerala High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Dr KK Ramachandran vs Sub Inspector of Police & Anr in Crl.MC No. 2322 of 2018 Crime No.697/2017 of Vadanappally Police Station, Thrissur CC 2255/2017 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Chavakkad held that the consultation room of a doctor in a hospital is not a ‘public place’ in terms of Section 294(b) of IPC. This was held so while quashing a case of harassment against a doctor. The police had booked the doctor under Section 294(b) and Section 354 of the IPC.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.2255/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad (for short ‘the court below’).”
As we see, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 294(b) and 354 A of IPC.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “The petitioner is a Paediatrician practicing at T.M. Hospital, Chavakkad. The child of the 2nd respondent was a patient of the petitioner. The alleged incident was taken place on 7.6.2017 at about 6 pm at the hospital when the 2nd respondent brought her child to the petitioner for treatment. It is alleged that, while treating the child, the petitioner misbehaved with the 2nd respondent by showing obscene action with his finger and uttering obscene words against her.”
Needless to say, the Bench then mentions in para 4 that, “I have heard Sri. Navneeth N. Nath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice has been served to the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance.”
Of course, the Bench then lays bare in para 5 that, “The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 294(b) and 354 A of IPC are attracted.”
Frankly speaking, the Bench then points out in para 6 that, “A reading of the FIS would show that the circumcision of the son of the 2nd respondent was done at T.M. Hospital on 2.6.2017 by one Dr. Mahin. Since the child developed bleeding from his penis, the 2nd respondent took the child to the hospital on 7.6.2017 at 6 pm. The case of the 2nd respondent is that, the petitioner attended the child at his consulting room and during examination, when the child passed urine, the petitioner got angry and showered abusive words against her which according to her outraged her modesty.”
Most significantly and also most forthrightly, the Bench makes it pretty clear in para 7 stating that, “In order to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the following two ingredients are to be satisfied. (i) The offender has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near any public place and (ii) has so caused annoyance to others. If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it caused no annoyance to others, no offence is committed.”
Equally significant is what is then pointed out in para 8 that, “Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the consulting room of the petitioner at the T.M. Hospital, Chavakkad. It can never be termed as a public place or near public place. That apart, in order to satisfy the definition of obscenity to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers. [See Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT 745)]. There is no case for the prosecution that the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner aroused sexually impure thoughts in the minds of the hearers. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 294(b) of IPC are not attracted.”
Finally and no less significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 9 that, “Section 354A of IPC deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. It reads as follows:
“354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment(1) A man committing any of the following acts—
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,
shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.”
A reading of the FIS would show that none of the above ingredients are attracted. Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.2255/2017 on the file of the court below is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed.”
All told, we thus see quite clearly that the Kerala High Court very rightly quashes the case against the doctor. The Court also makes it pretty clear very rightly that doctor’s consultation room is not a public place. There can be certainly just no denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
