Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ved Prakash Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2011
M.Cr.C. No.3634/2011
10/01/2012
Shri Sankalp Kochar Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri L.N.Tripathi, Advocate for the objector. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally decided.
The applicant has filed the instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 13.12.2010 lodged by the complainant/ objector registered vide Crime No.57/2010 at Mahila Police Station Rewa District Rewa.
The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2010 the complainant has lodged an FIR in writing at Mahila Police Station Rewa to the effect that she was a Staff Nurse at Community Health Centre, Gangave District Rewa. Dr. Ved Prakash Tripathi was appointed as BMO. He was harassing the complainant unnecessarily. On 13.12.2010 the complainant reached to the hospital at 8:00 AM on her duty. Thereafter, applicant came to the hospital at 9:00 AM. He called the complainant to talk about her duties, then he started abusing and he caught hold the hands of the complainant and pressed her breast. When she came out, then a scuffling took place, in which chain of neck was snatched. On such complaint, Mahila Police Station, Rewa had registered the Crime No.57/2010 against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 324 of IPC. In medico legal examination done at 6:25 PM on the date of incident, some multiple nail abrasions were found over the neck upto the breast of the complainant and tenderness was also found on upper arm.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false FIR has been lodged against the applicant. He was BMO of particular hospital. Staff Nurse Smt. Anuradha Mishra (complainant) was in habit not to obey the duty fixed by the applicant. She used to refuse the night duties, because she was coming from Rewa every day. Vide Annexure A-2, a duty chart is submitted to show that on 13.12.2010 there was a night duty of the complainant and on holidays there was no duty of the complainant fixed by the applicant, and therefore it was not possible for the complainant to report on her duties at about 8:00 AM. Similarly, the applicant has written a letter about the behaviour of the complainant to his superior officers. A letter dated 1.12.2010 was also written by him to CMO, Rewa about the behaviour of the complainant. In this letter, the applicant has mentioned that the complainant has threatened him that she would implicate the applicant in some proceeding, if her duties are fixed in the night. The said letter was written 12 days prior to the incident, therefore conduct of the applicant is apparent. On 13.12.2010 the applicant has written a letter to SO Mangavan about the behaviour of the complainant. The copy of the said letter is also submitted at Annexure A-1. After such a report, the matter was referred to CMO and CMO after enquiry directed vide order dated 17.1.2011 that he has already enquired into the matter and the applicant has not done any act which relates to the alleged crime registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 324 of IPC. CMO Rewa examined Smt. Manwati Mishra- Staff Nurse, Omkar Prasad Sharma-Dresser, Keshav Prasad Saket-Wathman, Mamta Saket-Sweeper and other patients, who were present at the time of alleged incident and found no fault at all of the applicant. The complainant, who was posted at a particular hospital since last so many years had good relations with one compounder Satya Narayan Mishra, who initiated the complaint in support of the complainant against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the FIR has been lodged in a delayed manner, which could be lodged at Police Station Mangavan, but the complainant went to the Mahila Police Station Rewa. The FIR has been lodged with a delay of nine hours and in such period of nine hours, a story could be cooked. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant caught hold the hands of the complainant and pressed his hands on her breast. There is no allegation that some nails marks were created on her neck, whereas in the medical report so many multiple nail abrasions were found on the neck of the complainant. The complainant is a Staff Nurse, and therefore to create such an evidence, nail marks could be caused by herself. Evidence given by various witnesses appears to be contradictory. Alleged eye-witness Suresh states that he could not see the incident, but after hearing the noise, when he went inside, he found that the applicant was hugging with the complainant, whereas there was no such allegation made by the complainant herself. Similarly, eye-witnesses Ramakant Pandey, Satya Narayan Mishra and Ram Bharti have stated that they saw that applicant was beating the complainant and she was shouting that applicant outraged her modesty, but they could not tell the actual overt-act of the applicant by which modesty of the complainant was outraged. Under such circumstances, the overt- act as alleged by the complainant relating to outrage the modesty is not at all confirmed by the witnesses. Satya Narayan Mishra, who was Compounder in that hospital has sent a report to the CMO in support of the complainant, whereas he had no locus standi to do so. When he gave an affidavit in favour of the complainant, then story of assault etc. was not mentioned in that affidavit. In such circumstances, where the various employees of the hospital were not examined by the police, who were definitely present at the time of incident and by created witnesses of the complainant, the case was registered. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the FIR registered vide Crime No.57/2010 at Mahila Police Station, Rewa against the applicant may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. He submits that the FIR has been lodged and story is confirmed by so many witnesses. In such circumstances, the FIR cannot be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector has submitted that the applicant was in habit in doing such an activity with so many ladies. He has submitted the copy of affidavits given by Pushpa Devi, Satya Narayan Mishra and other persons to show about the behaviour of the applicant. The complainant was called by the applicant for morning duty, and therefore she went to the hospital at about 8:00 AM. Thereafter she was called and the applicant used a criminal force to outrage her modesty. He assaulted the victim, and therefore due to his nail, victim was injured. The police has rightly registered the FIR under Sections 354 and 324 of IPC against the applicant. When FIR has been lodged, then by quashing the FIR, process of law may be stopped, which cannot be done under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No abuse of process of law has been done by the complainant. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not be accepted.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter. The applicant has already informed his superior officers on 1.12.2010 about the conduct of the complainant. The complainant has threatened the applicant about such proceeding and it would be clear that there were tensed relations between the complainant and her controlling officer. It would be very much clear that there was no duty affixed of the complainant from 8:00 AM. It is not the case of the complainant that she did her night duty and thereafter she continued with the morning duty according to the direction of the applicant. It appears that she did not attend her night duty as fixed vide order dated dated 23.11.2010. In such circumstances, it would be clear that the complainant was not ready to do the night duty, because she was interested to come and go back Rewa after her duty hours. She was posted at a particular hospital since last so many years, and therefore she was in habit to do such type of duties, due to which quarrel took place between the parties. The police has not examined the members of the hospital viz. Smt. Manwati Mishra- Staff Nurse, Omkar Prasad Sharma- Dresser, Keshav Prasad Saket-Wathman and Mamta Saket-Sweeper in support of complaint made by the complainant. Only Satya Narayan Mishra was examined in favour of the complainant, who has sent a report to the CMO concerned on 31.12.2010 against the applicant in support of the complainant, but he was not elected office bearer of any union of the employees. He did not have any locus standi to send such a complaint to his superior officers. On the contrary in his affidavit, he did not mention about the incident. He simply informed that the applicant directed the complainant to attend the morning duty on 13.12.2010, but such an affidavit still appears to be a false one, because after doing the night duty, it was not possible for the complainant to continue upto the morning duty. It is clear from the record that the duty of the complainant was not changed and she was expected in the night duty, but she did not appear in the night duty. In such circumstances, it appears that Satya Narayan Mishra has some grievance with the applicant, and therefore he is unnecessarily supporting the complainant. His testimony etc. as appended in his complaint sent to CMO and statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as in the affidavit seem to be different, and therefore it cannot be accepted. The FIR has been lodged with a delay of nine hours and no explanation has been shown for such delay. The complainant could lodge the FIR at Police Station Gangavan, but she lodged the same at Mahila Police Station Rewa.
It is also alleged by the complainant that applicant held her hands and touched her breast. It is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that the applicant scratched her by nails, but in the MLC report so many nails marks were found on her neck to breast. It appears that the medical report is prepared afterwards. It is not co-related to the allegation made against the applicant. Various witnesses were examined by the police, but their statements are contradictory to the statement of the complainant or version given in the FIR. For example, witness Suresh states that he saw that applicant was hugging with the complainant, but no allegation of hugging was directed by the complainant in the FIR. In such circumstances, where place of incident is a government hospital and applicant is a doctor and controlling officer of that hospital, it was not possible for him to do such an act with the complainant where the relations of both the parties were tensed. The applicant has already intimated his superior officers that the complainant has given threats about lodging such proceeding against the applicant.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it would be clear that a false FIR has been lodged against the applicant by the complainant. The applicant cannot be left to his fate to participate in the entire trial at Rewa. It is a fit case in which extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be invoked.
Consequently, the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. And the FIR dated 13.12.2010 registered vide Crime No.57/2010 at Mahila Police Station Rewa District Rewa against the present applicant is hereby quashed. The proceeding pending before the JMFC concerned is also quashed.
A copy of this order be sent to the JMFC concerned for necessary compliance.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari