High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-07Disposed of

Dr. Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 2441 of 2012 (A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2013-01-07
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is disposed of. The High Court declines to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this pre-trial stage. It notes that if the complaint relates to improper investigation, the petitioner may move under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for discharge, and may pursue a change of investigating agency if warranted. The High Court leaves the investigation open for review at the appropriate stage and disposes of Crl.M.C. accordingly.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Velayudhan

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Circle Inspector of Police, Peramangalam, Thrissur – 680 017
K.K. Geetha, W/o. Unni @ Unnikrishnan, Kurupathu Veedu, Seetharam Mill Lane, Poomkunnam, Thrissur - 680 023

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.S. Madhusoodanan
• Sri Thomas Chazhukkaran
• Sri M.M. Vinod Kumar
• Sri P.K. Rakesh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Rajesh Vijayan
• Sri Dinesh Mathew
• Sri J. Muricken
• Sri P.V. Balakrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dr. Velayudhan, a practicing doctor, challenges a pending criminal proceeding arising from Crime No.616/2011 at Vyiyur Police Station, now pending as C.P.30/2011 before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur. The 3rd respondent, a former housemaid, has alleged sexual abuse by the petitioner beginning in 1975 when she was a minor and continuing during her employment at the petitioner’s home and later at Daya Hospital. The FIR charges include sections 376 IPC (rape) and 506(i) IPC (criminal intimidation). The petitioner contends that the entire complaint is an exercise in harassment and malice, pointing to delays, inconsistent statements, and materials such as Annexures III–V (mother’s statement, brother’s statement, and school admission register) to suggest unreliability and improbability of the case. He invokes Bhajan Lal’s principle from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) to urge quashing under section 482 Cr.P.C. He is willing to undergo a DNA test and had sought a change of investigating agency, which he claims was not accepted. The respondents defend the process as serious and ongoing, with other proceedings pending. The High Court, while noting the need for careful scrutiny, holds that it cannot quash the proceedings at this stage under 482 Cr.P.C., but leaves room for discharge under 173(8) Cr.P.C. and disposes of the petition accordingly, without prejudging the merits of the case, and without stopping the investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 376 IPCSection 506(i) IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Power of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in fit cases.
Discharge of offences or proceedings under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Bhajan Lal principle (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604) regarding when quashing is permissible.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the material on record reveals improbabilities and inconsistencies in the FI statement, including delayed and conflicting statements from the 3rd respondent and her close relatives. He submits that the allegations are harassing and motivated, rendering the charge under section 376 IPC unsustainable at this stage. Citing Bhajan Lal, he urges the High Court to quash under 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds of mala fide and lack of credible evidence, or at least discharge under 173(8) Cr.P.C. He offers to undergo a DNA test and had sought a change of investigating agency, which he contends is warranted for fair inquiry. The record, he argues, contains Annexures III–V supporting his claim of fabrication.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the allegations involve serious offences and multiple proceedings are pending, meriting sober judicial scrutiny. The investigation is ongoing, and there is no basis to pre-emptively quash the proceedings. They emphasize that the petitioner’s request for a DNA test and for a change of investigating agency has not altered the necessity for due process. The High Court’s interference at this preliminary stage could undermine fair investigation and prosecutorial function. They contend that the remedy of discharge can be pursued later if the investigation reveals no probable cause, but not to bar the proceedings at this stage.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal	AIR 1992 SC 604	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss the scope of quashing under section 482 Cr.P.C.; used as context for the proposition that quashing is permissible in fit cases, but not directly applied to quash at this stage in the present petition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2441 of 2012 (A)** ## **--------------------------** **SET ASIDE ANN.II CHARGE IN CRIME NO.616/2011 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION PENDING AS C.P.NO.30/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I,THRISSUR.** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:** **------------------------** **DR.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, ALUNGAL HOUSE, PALLATH LANE WEST, POOMKUNNAM, THRISSUR-2.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN** **SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR.** **COMPLAINANT(S):** **---------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR – 680 017.** **3. K.K.GEETHA, W/O.UNNI @ UNNIKRISHNAN, KURUPATHU VEEDU, SEETHARAM MILL LANE, POOMKUNNAM, THRISSUR -680 023.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R3 BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 2441 of 2012 (A)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-** **ANNEX.A1:PHTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CR.616/11 DTD 25/6/2011 ANNEX.A1(A):-PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DTD 25/6/2011 ANNEX.II:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO 616/11 DTD 30/9/11 ANNEX.III:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASE DAIRY STATEMENT OF CW4-SARDAMMA,DTD NIL ANNEX.IV:PHOTOCPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW5-NANDAKUMAR DTD NIL ANNEX.V:PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER OF SANTHI,DAUGHTER OF 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEX.VI:PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF PETITIONER TO HON'BLE CHIED MINISTER DTD 14/7/11** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** **amk** **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------------------CRL.M.C.No.2441 Of 2012 ---------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 7[th] DAY OF JANUARY, 2013** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is a practising Doctor who is mainly aggrieved by the imputations made by the 3[rd] respondent while initiating criminal prosecution alleging offence under section 376 IPC. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Urologist in the West Fort High Tech Hospital, Poonkunnam, Thrissur. During the period from 1994 to 31.7.2011, he was working in the same post at Daya Hospital, Thrissur and before that from 23.3.1983 to 25.12.1990, he was working as Urologist under Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia. He settled at Poonkunnam during 1994 in a rented house. 3. The 3[rd] respondent herein was working as a house maid in the house of the petitioner. Her complaint is that in 1975, she was only 13 years and she was subjected to sexual abuse by the petitioner during different periods. The first pregnancy was terminated and at the age of 23 years she again got pregnant from the petitioner and delivered a female Crl.M.C.No.2441/12 : 2 : child by name Santhi. After the delivery, she was given appointment in the Medical Central, Thrissur (presently Daya Hospital). Therein also sexual abuse continued and she became pregnant for the 3[rd] time in 2001, which was aborted at Aswini Hospital, Thrissur. Even though she has married one Unni, knowing that she is pregnant, he deserted her on the same day. 4. Allegation is that sexual abuse continued in the Daya Hospital and thereafter she was terminated from service. Annexure I is the copy of the First Information Statement. The police registered a crime as Crime No.616/2011 and Annexure II is the copy of the final report. The charge is laid under section 376 and 506(i) IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the statement of the mother of the 3[rd] respondent, namely Annexure III, the statement of the brother of the 3[rd] respondent as Annexure IV and a copy of the school admission register produced as Annexure V submitted that this is a case where the petitioner is being harassed at the hands of the 3[rd] Crl.M.C.No.2441/12 : 3 : respondent and there is no truth in the allegation. It is submitted that Annexure I itself imrobabilise the entire version and it is only a fitment of imagination by the 3[rd] respondent. It is also submitted that the attempt is to malign the reputation of the petitioner without any real basis and my attention is invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in **State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604).** It is submitted that the Apex Court as per the judgment quashed a complaint in exercise of the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a matter like this, wherein it was found as frivolous and malafide. It is also submitted that the petitioner is prepared himself to subject to a DNA test; but the investigating officer has not accepted the said request and thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint before the Government as per Annexure VI to change the investigating agency. 6. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that apart from the criminal case other proceedings are also pending before the Family Court and before the civil court. Crl.M.C.No.2441/12 : 4 : 7. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 8. Of course, various aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner will have to be considered. But the question is whether at this stage, this Court can interfere in a matter like this, where serious allegations of sexual abuse have been raised against the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed on the undue delay, inconsistent versions between the statement of the 3[rd] respondent as well as her mother, the entry with regard to the name of the father of the child in Annexure V as Unni and other factors. Of course, in a fit case, the proceedings can be quashed by this Court. But the said power can be exercised only if on a reading of the FI statement, no offence is made out. The petitioner has raised various contentions. But as of now the charge has been laid. If the complaint is regarding the improper investigation requiring a further investigation, the petitioner can invite the attention of the court under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the matter. Crl.M.C.No.2441/12 : 5 : 10. I am not satisfied that this Court can quash the proceedings by invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage. But the petitioner will have the remedy to approach the concerned court at the appropriate stage by filing an application for discharge, which will be duly considered by the Court on its merits. The Crl.M.C. is accordingly disposed of. ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE** dsn ## Crl.M.C.No.2441/12 : 6 :