Bombay High Court
Dr.Amol S/O Gulabrao Badge vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Saoner ... on 21 September, 2021
Author: Amit B. Borkar
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 663 OF 2021
Dr. Amol S/o Gulabrao Badge
Aged about 37 Yrs. Occ. Doctor, .. APPLICANT
R/o. 318, Shrinagar, Nagpur
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, Saoner,
Police Station Saoner, Dist. Nagpur
.. RESPONDENTS
2. Mrs. Ahilya Nadar,
Aged about 19 Yrs. Occ. Student,
R/o C/o Ramji Naik, Near Shiv Mandir,
Saoner, Dist. Nagpur
Mr. A.A. Mardikar, Senior Advocate for applicant
Mr. V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for non-applicant / State
Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka S. Sirpurkar, Advocate appointed for non-
applicant No.2
CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, &
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
JUDGMENT :(Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging registration of ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 20:41:47 ::: apl-663-2021 (5).odt First Information Report No. 213/2021, registered with non- applicant No.1 - Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 354 (A), (B) & (D) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants with the accusation that the applicant at the time of performing sonography tried to molest the non- applicant No.2 by touching her private part. It is alleged by the non-applicant No.2 that her mother was present at the time of conducting sonography, but, the curtains were closed down. It is alleged that on the same day, the applicant sent message to the non-applicant No.2. The non-applicant No.2 therefore, lodged report against the applicant.
4. The applicant has challenged registration of First Information Report by filing present application. This Court on 16/07/2021, issued notice to non-applicants. The non-applicant No.1 - investigating agency has filed their reply stating that on perusal of the statement it appears that the applicant outraged modesty by touching private part of the victim during the course of conducting sonography and also made WhatApp chat.
PAGE 2 OF 5 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 20:41:47 ::: apl-663-2021 (5).odt The investigating agency has collected screenshot of WhatsApp message sent by the present applicant on the cell phone of the victim which supports the case of non-applicant No.2. It is stated that the statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to show involvement of the present applicant which is corroborated by the WhatsApp message.
5. The non-applicant No.2 through Advocate appointed by the Court filed her reply stating that the applicant has exceeded his area of examination as the applicant was expected only to conduct sonography of the abdomen of the non- applicant No.2. However, the applicant took advantage of seclusion inside the area with curtains and while conducting sonography the applicant started touching the breasts and private part of the non-applicant No.2 by inserting his hand inside private area of non-applicant No.2. While doing so, the applicant was distracting non-applicant No. 2 by asking her questions about her illness and by telling her that he could see some serious condition of her kidney and glad bladder, which needs immediate attention. She stated that there was no female nurse inside the enclosed area. It is also stated that after PAGE 3 OF 5 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 20:41:47 ::: apl-663-2021 (5).odt completion of the examination, the applicant asked the non- applicant No.2 to send him a message on his phone so that he could record her number and advise for further treatment. The applicant asked the non-applicant No.2 to sent him a message in his presence so that he could identify the number. Accordingly, the non-applicant No.2 sent a message to the applicant, whereupon the applicant written the message at the same time i.e. 2:20 p.m. and 2:21 p.m. The mother of the non- applicant No.2 was waiting in waiting area.
6. We have carefully considered the allegations made in First Information Report along with reply filed by the non- applicants No.1 and 2. On consideration of allegations in the First Information Report and the reply filed by the investigating agency and non-applicant No.2, it appears that prima facie ingredients of offences alleged against the applicant are fulfilled. Whether the allegations made against the applicant are correct or not, it is for the investigating agency to investigate into the same and if ultimately the charge-sheet is filed against the applicant, the truth or falsity of the case of prosecution can be decided in trial. On reading of the reply filed by the non-
PAGE 4 OF 5 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 20:41:47 ::: apl-663-2021 (5).odt applicant No.2 and particularly paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the reply, it appears that there is prima facie substance in the allegations made by the non-applicant No.2, it appears that there is prima facie substance in the allegations made by the non-applicant No.2. The falsity or truth of the allegations made by the non-applicant No.2 needs to be decided in a full-fledged trial, if investigating agency decides to file charge-sheet against the applicant. At this stage, we are satisfied that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicant are made out. There is no merit in the application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
7. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
MP Deshpande
PAGE 5 OF 5
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 20:41:47 :::