Section 294 IPC | Doctor's Consultation Room Not A 'Public Place': Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Paediatrician
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the consultation room of a doctor in a hospital is not a 'public place' in terms of Section 294(b) of IPC, while quashing a case of harassment against a doctorThe police had booked the doctor under Section 294(b) and Section 354A of the IPC.Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 294(b) of IPC is attracted when the offender sings, recites...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the consultation room of a doctor in a hospital is not a 'public place' in terms of Section 294(b) of IPC, while quashing a case of harassment against a doctor
The police had booked the doctor under Section 294(b) and Section 354A of the IPC.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 294(b) of IPC is attracted when the offender sings, recites or utters any obscene song or word in or near any public place, to the annoyance of others
"If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it caused no annoyance to others, no offence is committed," said the court.
It further noted that the place of occurrence was the consulting room of the doctor at a hospital.
"It can never be termed as a public place or near public place. That apart, in order to satisfy the definition of obscenity to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers. [See Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT 745)]. There is no case for the prosecution that the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner aroused sexually impure thoughts in the minds of the hearers. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 294(b) of IPC are not attracted," said the court
The court further said that a reading of the First Information Statement shows that none of the ingredients of Section 354A are attracted.
"Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner," it said, while quashing the proceedings pending before the trial court.
The case had been registered in 2017 against a paediatrician practicing at T.M. Hospital.
The child of the complainant was a patient of the doctor. In June 2017, the woman had taken her child to the hospital for treatment. She alleged that the doctor, while treating the child, misbehaved with her "by showing her obscene action with his finger and uttering obscene words against her".
According to the statement given by the complainant, the child was bleeding nearly a week after his circumcision at the hospital. When the doctor was examining the child in his consulting room, he allegedly got angry and "showered abusive words" against her "when the child passed urine".
Advocates C.P. Udayabhanu and Navneeth N. Nath appearing on behalf of the doctor earlier contended that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 294(b) and 354 A of IPC could be made out.
Public Prosecutor Sangeetha Raj appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Case Title: Dr. K.K. Ramachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 666