The Kerala High Court ruled on December 20 that a doctor's hospital consulting room is not a "public place" as defined under Section 294(b) of the IPC, dismissing a case of harassment against a doctor.

The doctor had been arrested by the police for violating IPC Sections 294(b) and 354A.

To irritate others, the offender must sing, recite, or utter any offensive song or word in a public place or close by, according to Justice Kauser Edappagath.

The Court said "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."

The Court further said "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."

A perusal of the First Information Statement, according to the court, demonstrates that none of the elements of Section 354A are being drawn.

A paediatrician working at T.M. Hospital was the defendant in the case, which was filed in 2017.

The complainant's child was a patient of the physician. The mom had brought her child to the hospital in June 2017 for treatment. In her complaint, she claimed that the doctor had mistreated her while attending to the infant "by showing her lewd movement with his finger and screaming obscene comments against her."

In accordance with the complainant's allegation, the youngster was still bleeding nearly a week after the hospital performed the circumcision. The doctor allegedly became enraged and "showered nasty comments" against the youngster "when the child leaked pee" while examining her in his consulting room.

The doctor's attorneys, C.P. Udayabhanu and Navneeth N. Nath, argued earlier that no offence under Sections 294(b) and 354 A of the IPC could be established, even if all of the allegations in the FIS and the evidence gathered during the investigation were taken seriously.

Case Title: Dr. K.K. Ramachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr. 
Citation: CRL.MC NO. 2322 OF 2018
Link: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrNYV6RGUYcemSGqObVyIOkpIPvHjgQhIdMEV1CUrKKSl&caseno=Crl.MC/2322/2018&cCode=1&appFlag=