NISHA JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, I shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions being Crl. MC No.926/2011 and Crl. Rev. Petition No.124/2011 as both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner. First of all I shall take up Crl. MC No.926/2011 as the fate of Crl. Rev. Petition No.124/2011 depends on the finding of this petition. CRL.M.C. 926/2011

(2.) By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which on the application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the petitioner - Nisha Jain was arrayed as an accused.

(3.) The background facts are that the accused - Pankaj Mittal was charged for offence under Section 313/376/385/34 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations of the prosecutrix that the accused - Pankaj Mittal who was working with her had been continuously harassing her to marry him and had also committed rape upon her without her consent. She further alleged that accused - Pankaj Mittal had clicked her pictures from the mobile phone and made physical relations with her under the threat of showing the same in the locality. After she became pregnant, accused deceptively got her abortion done without her consent. On the basis of these allegations, investigation was conducted and thereafter accused - Pankaj Mittal was charge-sheeted. During the trial of the case, the petitioner - Dr. Nisha Jain on whose clinic the abortion was got done was examined as PW-7. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State praying for arraying the name of the petitioner - Dr. Nisha Jain as an accused in the instant case as it was pleaded that she was head of Saroj Hospital, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi and was also running a surgical maternity and child care centre in the name of Sunisha's Panchwati Clinic, Rohini, Delhi. Initially, in her deposition before the court, she did not supported the case of the prosecution on the aspect of carrying out the abortion of prosecutrix, but during her cross examination by Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, she admitted that on 30.09.2008, the couple i.e. prosecutrix and the accused - Pankaj Mittal, whom she identified in the court, had come to her nursing home and the girl informed her that she was pregnant and that she wanted to get the abortion done and thereafter abortion was conducted. It was pleaded that there has been violation of Section 3 (2) of Sub Section (4) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and also of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Vide the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and directed the petitioner to be arrayed as an accused.