Kerala HC Declines To Quash FIR Against Doctor & Hospital Staff Booked For Sharing Images, Videos Of Woman Undergoing Surgery To Deliver Triplets

The crime was registered against the doctors under Section 354(C) (Voyeurism) of IPC, Sections 66(E) (Punishment for violation of Privacy) and 67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a prima facie case was made out against petitioners involving serious allegations. The Court thus declined to quash the proceedings against them.

“That apart, the WhatsApp videographs and photographs of the cesarean procedure sent by the accused were collected during investigation to justify the involvement of the petitioners in this crime, prima facie. Thus the matter shall go for trial, and, therefore, the quashment sought for cannot be considered. In such a case, involving very serious offences, quashment of the proceedings could not be resorted to. Hence this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.”

The first petitioner is an Anesthesiologist and the second petitioner is a hospital staff and both of them were employed at the Government Taluk Hospital, Payyannur in Kannur district.

The defacto complainant underwent a cesarean operation in the year 2014 and delivered triplets. The specific allegation was that the first petitioner videographed and the second petitioner took images of the cesarean operation. It is alleged that the petitioners shared these videos and images through WhatsApp.

The petitioners submitted that the identity of the defacto complainant could not be ascertained from the videos or images and thus sought to quash the proceedings.

The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing the proceedings and stated that the petitioners outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant by sharing images and videos of her undergoing a cesarean operation.

The Court noted that the videos and images were recovered by the police from the mobile phones of the petitioners during the investigation.

The Court stated that the matter has to go to trial and cannot be quashed.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates I.V.Pramod, K.V.Sasidharan, Saira Souraj P.

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates M.Baiju Noel, T.S.Likhitha, Shinto Sabastian, Public Prosecutor M.P.Prasanth

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502

Case Title: Sunil P P v State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 4223 OF 2022

Click here to read/download Order