Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 311 (CHH)

Aarti Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-08-19

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. By way of the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR registered as Crime No. 19/2013 at PS. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case for commission of the said offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C., Sections 4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman Prohibition Act, 1986 and Sections 66(e), 67 and 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000. He submits that from the plain reading of the entire case diary and also the charge-sheet it does not reflect that the petitioner had played any direct or indirect role in commission of the alleged offence of taking obscene videos and photographs of the private parts of the lady patients who had visited the present petitioner's Clinic for treatment. He submits that even on perusal of the entire enquiry report, it could not show that any sort of co-operation was extended by the petitioner to the accused persons in taking the said obscene videos nor is the mobile phone which is said to have been seized belongs to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no material whatsoever against the petitioner and therefore she should not be forced to face the trial for no fault of her part and the FIR deserves to be quashed. 2. However, State counsel opposing the instant petition submits that the case of the prosecution itself is that the alleged obscene videos and photographs have been taken by the husband of the petitioner in connivance with the petitioner. He submits that as per the prosecution case, the petitioner had some role in commission of the said offence is established from the fact that, the husband of the petitioner who is not a qualified medical doctor has taken the obscene videos of the private parts of the patients who visited the Clinic of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that without the consent of the petitioner anybody could have entered into the chamber of the petitioner while she was examining the patients. Therefore, it cannot be said that without the consent of the petitioner anybody could have entered into the chamber of the petitioner while she was examining the patients. Thus, prima facie, there is some material to show that these obscene videos and photographs have been taken if not by the petitioner but by the other accused persons with the consent of the petitioner and thus with the available materials the petitioner can safely be said to have assisted other accused persons for taking the said obscene videos and photographs of the patients who had visited the Clinic of the petitioner. 3. State counsel further submits that it is a case where charge-sheet has been filed on 30.12.2013 and till date the petitioner is absconding. He submits that unless the petitioner is taken into custody and further inquiry is made from the petitioner, the investigation cannot be got completed and in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the prosecution can extract more information and details in respect of the commission of the offence and can bring additional materials collected in the course of investigation. Therefore, for this reason also the petition deserves to be rejected. 4. Having considered the rival contentions put forth by either side, it is trite to refer to a decision recently decided i.e. Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 52 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Magistrate, on the basis of the material available on record, only has to see whether there is a ground to presume that the accused/applicant has committed an offence. The Supreme Court has further held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to evaluate the material documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 5. Similarly, in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in very categorical terms held in para-19 as "At the initial stage of framing of charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage." In the same judgment, the Court below has clearly stated that the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and that the scope of interference exercising the revisional jurisdiction particularly while dealing with the framing of a charge has to be very limited. 6. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case particularly the nature of allegation levelled in the FIR and also keeping in view the fact that prima facie, the materials available in the documents annexed with this petition show that the obscene videos and photographs have been taken from the clinic belonging to the petitioner and the same are of those patients who had-come to the petitioner for the purpose of consultation/treatment and that the other accused persons not being qualified doctors their presence in the said Clinic also was not at all required and if the other accused persons are alleged to have taken the obscene videos and photographs without consent or assistance of the petitioner, the same could only be decided during the course of trial. Hence, this Court is of the view that prima facie, there is some material available in the documents that are placed before the Court below for filing of the charge-sheet for the offence punishable u/s. 509 of I.P.C., Sections 4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman Prohibition Act, 1986 and Sections 66(e), 67 and 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000. 7. For the foregoing reasons, no such strong case has been made out by the counsel for the petitioner so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage of registering the FIR and subsequently filing of the Charge-sheet. Thus, the Cr.M.P. being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.