Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2958 (MAD)

Suchitra v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

2018-09-17

G.R.SWAMINATHAN

body2018
ORDER : A rape allegation made by a Kerala based Nun that Jalandhar Bishop Franco Mullackall sexually abused her 13 times between 2014-2016 is in the news for the last several weeks. Commission of crimes by those in religious robes is however nothing new. That's what the Dalai Lama said while meeting the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the Buddhist teachers at Netherlands last week. Cassock is no exception. Women have been targets of sexual depredation ; Ashram or Convent, woman is unsafe when man turns vile. 2. Like the Kerala Nun, the second respondent herein was also ordained in one such Congregation in the year 2003. The principal accused Fr.Rajarathinam who was also the Principal of St.Joseph College, Trichy was associated with the same congregation and he is alleged to have raped the defacto complainant on 22.01.2006 at about 02.00 P.M. He is said to have taken photographs of the victim and black mailed her into having sexual relationship with him on subsequent occasions also. As a result, the defacto complainant became pregnant in April 2008. Fr.Rajarathinam is said to have threatened the defacto complainant that she should abort the conception and if she did not do so, she would face the consequences. He took the defacto complainant in his vehicle and dropped her in front of the Kavery Medical Centre & Hospital, Trichy. The defacto complainant underwent a medical check up there. It was found that she was one and half months pregnant. Thereupon, the defacto complainant informed her sister Mary and a fellow Nun by name Sister Jancy who came to the hospital. Consent was taken for abortion. Since the conception was only 45 days old, medicines were prescribed for aborting the same. 3. Fr.Rajarathinam continued to be give sexual torture to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant did not want to submit to him any longer. Angered by the refusal of the defacto complainant to dole out sexual favours, the said accused lodged a complaint against her before the Mother Superior of the Congregation. That led to the expulsion of the defacto complainant from the Congregation itself. Since few other religious figures of the congregation also had abused and threatened the defacto complainant, she lodged a complaint before the first respondent police on 12.10.2010. That led to the expulsion of the defacto complainant from the Congregation itself. Since few other religious figures of the congregation also had abused and threatened the defacto complainant, she lodged a complaint before the first respondent police on 12.10.2010. Crime No. 62 of 2010 was registered against Fr.Rajarathinam and three other members of the congregation by the first respondent for offences under Sections 376 and 506(i) IPC. Investigation was undertaken. 4. The defacto complainant had made a specific statement that she underwent medical check up at Kaveri Medical Centre and Hospital and medicines for aborting the conception were prescribed by the said hospital. The police enquired the petitioner herein. The petitioner is said to have originally given a statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC confirming the allegations of the defacto complainant. But later, she did a u-turn. The hospital management took the stand that there is no evidence regarding the treatment taken by the defacto complainant. Therefore, they denied the allegations of the defacto complainant. That made the police to implicate the petitioner herein also while laying the final report. 5. The charge against the petitioner herein is that she had committed the offence under Section 313 r/w 201 IPC. The final report has since been taken on file in S.C No.101 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge (Magila Court), Trichirappalli. To quash these proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed. 6. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. 7. It is contended that there is absolutely no material in support of the prosecution as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is further pointed out that the statement said to have been given by the petitioner during the course of investigation cannot be used against her. The petitioner is a professional Doctor and she ought not to be made to undergo the agony of the criminal trial when there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against her. It was pointedly highlighted that there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the defacto complainant had taken treatment in Kavery Medical Centre & Hospital or particularly that the petitioner herein had treated her. 8. It was pointedly highlighted that there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the defacto complainant had taken treatment in Kavery Medical Centre & Hospital or particularly that the petitioner herein had treated her. 8. This Court is unable to agree with any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That the case against the petitioner does not deserve to be quashed is evident from a mere reading of the grounds set out in the above criminal original petition. The grounds projected by the petitioner are as follows : “a. The Sessions (Magila court) failed to see that under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, a registered Medical Practitioner shall not guilty of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, if the pregnancy is terminated in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1971. b. The Sessions court failed to see that termination of pregnancy of unmarried woman is not an offence either under Indian Penal Code or under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. c. The Sessions Court failed to see that even according to the admitted case of the prosecution, the pregnancy of the defacto complainant is alleged to have been caused by rape and such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to mental health of the pregnant woman, as provided in Explanation of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, herein after called MTP Act, 1971. d. The Sessions court failed to see that on the materials placed by the prosecution it is admitted by them that in April 2008 the defacto complainant, her elder sister and sister Johncy all went to KMC Hospital an consulted the petitioner herein and on being appraised of 45 days pregnancy, a signature was obtained from the elder sister of the defacto complainant and thereafter two tablets were given by which pregnancy was terminated and that goes to show that Section 3 (4) (b) of the MTP Act, 1971 is also deemed to have been satisfied. e. The Sessions Court failed to see that in the entire report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC and the accompanying materials thereon there is nothing even to infer that the defacto complainant was compelled by this petitioner to go in for termination of pregnancy.” 9. e. The Sessions Court failed to see that in the entire report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC and the accompanying materials thereon there is nothing even to infer that the defacto complainant was compelled by this petitioner to go in for termination of pregnancy.” 9. This Court can only exclaim that the petitioner has completely misconstrued the nature of the case projected against her. The petitioner had not committed any wrong doing by subjecting the defacto complainant to a medical examination and prescribing the medicines for aborting the conception which was only 45 days old. The charge against the petitioner is that having so treated the defacto complainant, she has now given a false information that she never treated the defacto complainant. It is this somersault by the petitioner that attracts the offence of Section 201 of IPC. Section 201 of IPC will be attracted not only if the evidence of offence is caused to be disappeared but also if false information is given to screen the offender. The material part of Section 201, reads as under : “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.” 10. In this case, the charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner has intentionally given an information respecting the offence which she knows to be false. The defacto complainant alleges that she is victim of rape at the hands of the principal accused Fr.Rajarathinam. According to her, she became pregnant as a result. She subsequently had taken treatment in Kauvery Medical Centre & Hospital, Trichy. The statement of L.W 2 Mrs. Bulgaria Mary is on the same lines. L.W 9, Usha Nandhini, Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station states that the petitioner herein had originally admitted having prescribed medicines for aborting the conception. To the same effect is the statement given by L.W 11 Mrs. Sumathi, Police Constable. Thus, there is prima facie material against the petitioner indicating that the petitioner has given false information respecting the offence in question. 11. The petitioner did not commit any offence by treating the defacto complainant. The offence committed by the petitioner lies in its denial. To the same effect is the statement given by L.W 11 Mrs. Sumathi, Police Constable. Thus, there is prima facie material against the petitioner indicating that the petitioner has given false information respecting the offence in question. 11. The petitioner did not commit any offence by treating the defacto complainant. The offence committed by the petitioner lies in its denial. It is quite possible that the defacto complainant did not inform the petitioner as to how she became pregnant. The petitioner is possibly unaware of the background facts. But, what goes against the petitioner is the categorical statement not only of the defacto complainant but also quite a few prosecution list witnesses. The defacto complainant as well as two other list witnesses have unambiguously spoken about the treatment taken by the defacto complainant in Kavery Medical Centre & Hospital, Trichy for aborting the conception. Two other list witnesses have stated that the petitioner initially confirmed the version of the defacto complainant but subsequently turned turtle. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner now stands accused of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 201 of IPC. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal) laid down certain parameters which have to be borne in mind while considering a petition for quashing a criminal proceedings. They are as under : “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 13. A further note of caution was sounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases ; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. In the present case, it is not the petitioner's allegation that the defacto complainant has deliberately implicated the institution or that the police have any personal grudge against her. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the rival versions. If it does so, it will be converting itself into a trial court. 14. In matters such as this involving grave offences, the criminal proceedings should not be lightly interfered with. This is a well settled principle of law (2016) 6 SCC 699 (Amanullah and another vs. State of Bihar). If it does so, it will be converting itself into a trial court. 14. In matters such as this involving grave offences, the criminal proceedings should not be lightly interfered with. This is a well settled principle of law (2016) 6 SCC 699 (Amanullah and another vs. State of Bihar). Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that no case has been made out for quashing the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The above Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to conclude the entire proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the court below shall dispose of the proceedings totally uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. The petitioner is a woman and a practicing Doctor. Therefore, her personal appearance before the court below is dispensed with. Of course, she has to appear to answer the charges, at the time of examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC and again at the time of pronouncement of judgment. On all other hearings, the petitioner can be represented through her counsel. 15. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.