KIRTI BHUSHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is made to the charge-sheet and summoning order dtd. 8/4/2019, passed by the court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Haridwar, in Special Sessions Trial No.48 of 2019, State Vs. Dr. Kirti Bhushan Mishra ('the case'), under Sec. 377 IPC and Sec. 11/12 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('the POCSO Act'), which is based on FIR No.97 of 2017, under Sec. 377 IPC and Ss. 11/12 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) The case is based on an FIR, lodged by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 were married on 8/12/2010. But, after marriage, the petitioner continued committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the respondent no.2, due to which, she sustained serious internal injuries with bleedings. But, the petitioner continued anal sex with her. The respondent no.2 was to be admitted in one Harihar Hospital Balangir. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not stop doing it and continued anal sex with the respondent no.2. When the respondent no.2 received serious internal injuries, she was admitted in FORTIS Jindal Hospital, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Surgery was suggested, but it was not conducted by the petitioner and he continued with such an act. In fact, it is the case of the prosecution that after one month of marriage, the petitioner left for Germany, where he was working at the relevant time and three months thereafter, the respondent no.2 also joined his company. But, due to harassment, forcible anal sex, physical assault, etc., the respondent no.2 came back to India in the month of October, 2013 and stayed in a house built by the petitioner in Chhattisgarh. In July, 2015, the petitioner was appointed in IIT Roorkee, District Haridwar.