HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7668 of 2009 Dated : 18.09.2009 Between : V.Ravinder Reddy ….. Petitioner a n d 1) Muddu Sridevi 2) The State of A.P. ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7668 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Crime No.140 of 2009 of Wardhannapet Police Station was registered on the strength of the written report given by the first respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The First Information Report in the said crime alleges that on 18.08.2009 when the first respondent went to the hospital of the petitioner for treatment, she fell unconscious after 7-30 p.m. The written report also further alleges that it was only on 20.08.2009 that the victim regained consciousness, informed her husband and when the petitioner was questioned, he abused them in filthy language, after which only the report was given to the Police. It is true that there was, thus, a significant time gap between the incident and the report to the Police. It is also true that the claim of the petitioner that he is a reputed doctor at the place of his practice may be probable. It is further true that the claims of the first respondent about the loss of consciousness during the course of alleged incident and being taken back to her house in that state and regaining consciousness only when she was taken to the hospital on 20.08.2009 do not sound very natural. But when such a serious allegation of rape of the patient by the doctor is made and when the matter is under investigation, it will be not in the interests of justice to intervene in exercise of inherent jurisdiction without permitting the statutory investigating agency to collect all oral, physical, forensic and scientific evidence concerning the allegations made by the first respondent. Though it is true that exercise of inherent jurisdiction in cases where the allegations are inherently improbable was held to be permissible by the Apex Court, the facts and circumstances of the present case did not present such clear and conclusive situation wherein the alleged rape can be considered to be inherently improbable and the allegations of the first respondent to be patently false. It is of course true that the contents of the written report leading to registration of the first information report did not appear to allege that the alleged rape of the first respondent by the petitioner had taken place because of the dominating position of the petitioner over the will of the first respondent or due to the social group to which the first respondent belongs to. The allegations did not suggest that the petitioner had taken advantage of any such fiduciary position of dominance to exploit the first respondent sexually to which she could not have otherwise agreed. The second respondent never stated that she agreed to the sexual intercourse due to the position of the petitioner. The essential ingredients of Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Act do not appear ex facie to be existing, as forcefully contended by Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. However, irrespective of the presence or absence of the said offence under the Act, the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. alleged against the petitioner requires a deep probe and the claim of culpable conduct on the part of the petitioner made by the first respondent and the claim of innocence made by the petitioner require to be investigated into by the Police without any hindrance from this Court, which can not conclusively determine such disputed question of fact in this summary enquiry. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 18th September, 2009 SUR