NIRAV ANUPAMBHAI TARKAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash and set aside order dated 27-7-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No.65 of 2006 confirming the order dated 8-2-2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, in Criminal Inquiry No.40 of 2003 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner-original complainant against the respondent Nos.2-6-original accused before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 312 read with Secs.202 and 114 of IPC inter alia stating that the respondent No.2 is his wife and respondent No.3 is father-in-law, respondent No.4 is mother-in-law and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are brothers-in-law. It is further stated that as his wife became pregnant, he took her to Dr.Miraben Pankajbhai Desai on 19-12-2002, who informed that growth of the child was normal. However, when his wife wanted to terminate the pregnancy, he opposed to the same. THE respondent No.2 then approached Dr.Meeraben, however, as there was no consent of the husband, she did not agree for abortion. As the respondent No.2 informed her parents that she did not want to keep the child, his in-laws were pressuring him for abortion. However, on 20-12-2005 the respondent No.3 came to Vadodara and on the next day took away respondent No.2 and went to Surat and approached Dr.Chetanaben. As there was no consent of husband, said doctor also did not agree for abortion. THEreafter, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 went to Dr.Bhardwaj Joshi, who terminated the pregnancy of respondent No.2. On 26-12-2002, the respondent No.2 went to the petitioner and told that she did abortion through Dr.Vandana Patel of Kalpana Clinic. THE said complaint was registered as Criminal Inquiry No.40 of 2003. After verification of the complainant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order under Sec.202 of Cr.P.C. directing the Police Inspector, J.P.Police Station to report within 60 days. On inquiry, the police submitted a report stating that no offence was committed and hence, an order dated 8-2-2006 was passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint by holding that consent of the husband is not required as per Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short). Revision being Criminal Revision Application NO.65 of 2006 preferred before the Sessions Court was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 27-7-2007. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED advocate, Mr.U.I.Vyas, for the respondent Nos.2 to 6, on the other hand, has submitted that both the courts below have come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case against the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and hence, complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. According to him, there is no illegality in the said findings and hence, it is requested that orders of both the courts below are not required to be interfered with.