AARTI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(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 P.S. Takhatpur, District.Bilaspur.

(2.) 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 IPC, 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.

(3.) 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. 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.