Forcible sex change operation on minor: Karnataka High Court refuses to quash complaint against doctor

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a complaint and chargesheet against a doctor accused of participating in the forceful sex change of a minor [Dr Anith Patil v State of Karnataka]..Justice Suraj Govindaraj held in the order,"The petitioner in the present matter is a Doctor, who is alleged to have conducted the sex change operation, and the other offences have not been alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has contended that the petitioner has not performed the operation, I am of the considered opinion that this cannot be a matter which can be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that is a matter which is required to be left for trial.".The Court was hearing a plea filed by Dr Anitha Patil seeking to quash the first information report (FIR) lodged in February 2018 as well as the chargesheet filed against her.Counsel for petitioner contended that the doctor was wrongfully framed in the case. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Jacob Mathew v. State Of Punjab & Anr where it was held that unless there is a credible opinion given by another doctor against the accused-doctor, no criminal case ought to be registered.Counsel for the State opposed the plea, stating that the matter was not related to negligence, but to a forcible sex change operation, which is a criminal offence both under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act..Several persons had been implicated in the chargesheet, many of whom were transgender persons who allegedly forced the minor victim to undergo a sex change operation for the purpose of prostitution and extortion of money etc, the Court noted.The Court said that the question of whether the victim was a minor at the time of the operation was to be determined during the trial. It thus ordered,"I am unable to come to a conclusion that there are no offences which have been made out, there are no grounds which have been made out for quashing of the proceedings, as such, reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the defences before the trial Court, the petition stands dismissed.".Advocate Vijetha R Naik represented the petitioner while Advocate Mahesh Shetty appeared for the State..[Read Order]