"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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.

Similar News