SUSHMABEN RAJENDRABHAI BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.I-25 of 2009 registered before the J.P. Nagar Police Station at Vadodara for the offence punishable under Sec. 354, 509 and 114 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(10)(11) of the Atrocities Act.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Nandish Thackar appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are the doctors by profession and running a hospital in the name and style as Subhechcha Hospital at Vadodara since last one year. The respondent No.2 original complainant was working as a nurse in the said hospital. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are that on the fateful day, at the time of carrying out the laparoscopy surgery of one patient, the applicant No.1 had put certain ornaments (finger rings) and wrist watch in the pocket of the apron worn by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 did not have any knowledge that how many rings were put in her pocket. It it alleged in the complaint that after the operation, she had given back all the ornaments to the applicant No.1, i.e, two rings and one wrist watch, however, the applicant No.1 asked for the third ring which was missing. Therefore, they all started searching for the third ring but did not find the same. Thereafter, both the applicant took the respondent No.2 in one room and asked her to remove all her cloths as they want to make a search of her. Accordingly, she removed her cloths but nothing was found. Thereafter, the other two other male co-accused also came in the room and carried out a search. With this sort of allegations, the complaint was registered. Learned advocate Mr. Thackar further submits that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation was ensued and at the end of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a report before the concerned Magistrate specifically stating that the involvement of the applicant-accused is not found out and, therefore, they are required to be exonerated, which was accepted by the Magistrate and the applicants were exonerated, however, the charge-sheet was filed qua the other co-accused. He also submits that as the applicants have already been exonerated, are no longer remains to be the accused and, therefore, the present FIR qua the applicants deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Thackar submits that thereafter, the father of the complainant made certain applications to the Human Right Commission, on the basis of which, the Human Rights Commission sent a letter to the Investigating Officer to take action against the applicants. Accordingly, the action was taken by the Investigating Officer by issuing notice under Sec. 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that as soon as the said notice was served to the applicants, imediately the applicants approached this Court by way of filing the present application and the then Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the further proceedings of the Impugned FIR qua the applicants-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Thackar also submits that thereafter trial qua the other co-accused was proceeded with, and ultimately at the end of trial, they have been acquitted by the trial court, a copy of order of acquittal has also been placed on record by the learned advocate Mr. Thackar. Learned advocate Mr. Thackar also submits that even if the entire case of the first informant is accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of atrocities are spelt out as in the impugned FIR itself, it is stated by the complainant that she was addressed by the applicant No.1 as 'Beta'. Therefore, considering the above stated factual aspects, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicants-accused would be nothing, but an abuse of the process of law.