POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

Doctor's Position of Power and Trust Must Not Be Misused: High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash FIR for Sexual Harassment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice M. Nagaprasanna underscores the need for a thorough investigation into allegations of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC.

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition filed by Dr. Chethan Kumar S., seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna on June 3, 2024, emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of a detailed investigation to uphold justice.

The petitioner, Dr. Chethan Kumar S., a doctor by profession, was accused by a female patient of inappropriate conduct during a medical examination. The complainant, suffering from chest pain, visited Orbsky Hospital in Bangalore, where Dr. Kumar was on duty. Following a preliminary examination and subsequent tests, Dr. Kumar allegedly asked the complainant to visit his private clinic for further examination. It is here that the alleged incident of sexual harassment took place. The complainant stated that Dr. Kumar inappropriately touched her and kissed her breast during the examination.

Credibility of Allegations: The court observed that the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner was that of a patient and a doctor, inherently involving a significant degree of trust. Justice Nagaprasanna noted, “The act of the doctor in directing the complainant to remove her shirt and bra and placing his mouth on the left breast would undoubtedly constitute the ingredients of Section 354A of IPC as it is undoubtedly an unwelcome and explicit overture.”

The court discussed the principles under Section 354A of the IPC, which penalizes physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. The court highlighted the vulnerability of patients and the inherent power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “A doctor should remember that the patients seek their help when they are in a vulnerable state – when they are sick, needy, and uncertain about the needs to be done. This vulnerability should not be used as a weapon by the doctors, misusing the trust the patient reposes in the doctor.”

Justice Nagaprasanna underscored the need for ethical conduct in medical practice, stating, “Due to such position of power and trust between the doctor and a patient, no alleged sexual activity by the doctor on the patient is acceptable. If it happens or it is alleged to have happened, it represents sexual abuse.”

The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition for quashing the FIR sends a strong message about the seriousness with which allegations of sexual harassment, especially within the sensitive context of a doctor-patient relationship, are viewed by the judiciary. The ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining ethical standards in medical practice and ensures that allegations of such nature are thoroughly investigated. This judgment not only upholds the complainant's right to seek justice but also sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals.

 

Date of Decision: June 3, 2024

Dr. Chethan Kumar S. v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Latest Legal News