Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Vellore and set aside the same. For Appellant(s):Mr.M.PurushothamanFor Respondent(s):Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinamfor Mr.S.Asok Kumarfor R1 to R5.Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R6.JUDGMENTChallenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.11658 of 2022 in S.T.C.No.224 of 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. 2. The defacto complainant and her husband who were prosecuting the case has filed this Criminal Revision.3. Before the Trial court, the revision petitioners filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. read with 211, 218, 220 and 251 of Cr.P.C., seeking to frame additional charge against the accused under Section 465, 201 read with 34 IPC. The said application was objected by the respondents/accused and on hearing both sides, the trial Judge held that on analysing the entire allegations raised by the petitioners, no prima facie case established that the 2 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023accused manipulated the medical records by suppressing the real negligence. Hence, there is no necessity to frame additional charges; accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.4. Brief facts of the case is as under:-(a) The defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the 6th respondent police. Based on that complaint, FIR was lodged for offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC against accused 2 to 6 by the Vellore North (Law and Order) Police Station in Crime No.73 of 2007. A-1 is Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore. A 2 to A 6 are doctors. A2 to A4 are the doctors working in the CMC Hospital in medicine department in Medicine Units II and III. A-5 is working as a doctor in the said hospital in O.G.Unit No.III. A6 is working in O.G.Unit No.1 since retired and died. Thereafter Final Report was filed for offences under Section 337 and 338 IPC.(b) The defacto complainant Joybell is the resident of Thoothukudi and was admitted with patient card no.218854-B for taking treatment for her disease systemio lupus Erythematosue (SLE) from 22.08.1994. (c) It is the allegation of the defacto complainant that A-2 negligently 3 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023followed the treatment procedure and advised her to take Beplex Forte tablets due to which she suffered non healing of ulcer over both legs; A-3 without applying his mind, negligently recommended to the 1st petitioner and administered her to undergo "Tab.Cyclophosphamide" along with another medicine from March 2003 due to which, she was facing an early menopause.(d) During the course of the same treatment, A-3 referred to OG for treatment of early menopause. A3 and A5 directed treatment in Obstetrics and Gynaecology General Department as General Patient. A-6 negligently started Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) with Premarin tablet daily, due to which she faced the risk of breast cancer and thereafter she was advised to take mammogram periodically to check development of Breast Cancer and the hospital and doctors continued Hormone Replacement Thereapy upto her 50 years. Thereafter A3 and A5 advised her to take treatment as General Patient. But due to negligent direction of A-2 to A-6 and continued treatment of Hormone Replacement Therapy, she was suffering with cancer and thereby, she faced danger to her life. Hence, based upon the complaint for the negligent treatment, final report was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Vellore as against A-1 to A-5 for offences under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC.(e) After issuance of the copies, charges were framed against the accused, thereafter, trial begun. 4 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023(f) During the course of trial, 2nd petitioner was examined by the trial court and he was examined as P.W.1 and his chief examination was recorded on July 2022 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.23. By relying Ex.P.1, P.W.1 stated about particulars of Hormone Replacement Therapy treatment given to his wife/1st petitioner from the year 1999 to 2005.(g) Based on the above deposition, the petitioners contended that Hormone Replacement Therapy treatment was administered by the accused/doctors for nearly about 5 years without proper evaluation and also erased the OG entries after 03.05.2001. Without noticing the complications developed by the 1st petitioner, Doctors' recommended the Hormone Replacement Therapy. Furthermore, the allegation of the defacto complainant-2nd petitioner is that his wife has not visited the hospital on 18.02.2002, 30.03.2003, 09.01.2004 and she visited O.G.General. Inspite of that and neither OG unit nor medical unit subjected her to treatment, without any evaluation, doctor directed her to take mammogram. Thereby, the accused/doctors not only failed to give proper treatment, but also erased the prescription notes and the said entries were not found in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and OG entries relied on by A-5 recommending Hormone Replacement Therapy also been erased. Furthermore, P.W.1 also contended that based on the oral 5 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023advise, Hormone Replacement Therapy treatment was continued. Apart from that, Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.22 are hospital documents tainted with fraud based on forgery in the defacto complainant’s medical records and are false documents. Based on that, they created false records and the same could be apparent from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 which are self admitted documents. Furthermore, through Ex.P.19, the complainant was continuing her treatment for more than 3 years in OG evaluation. But Ex.P.22 shows that they demanded Hormone Replacement Therapy treatment to the defacto complainant without any evaluation by the Medical Unit. Thereby, Ex.P.22 show that there is sufficient material to make out a case u/s.465, 201 read with 34 IPC, against the accused. Therefore, the revision petitioners/complainant had filed Crl.M.P.11658 of 2022, praying to frame additional charges. 5. (a) The said application was objected by the respondents-accused stating that the allegation made by the petitioner was to contradict the stand taken by the hospital through its letter dated 22.09.2005 (Ex.P.19). What has been stated in Ex.P.19 is that the patient was put on H.R.T., on 17.04.2000 and again on 27.08.2004, almost after four years of Hormone Replacement Therapy given to the petitioner and that she had reported for evaluation. The evaluation referred to in that letter means evaluation by OG unit. For her SLE problem, the patient had been visiting the hospital in Medicine II OPD unit and that was not 6 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023denied. The dates mentioned in FIR i.e., 08.02.2001, 11.06.2003 and 22.3.2004 all relate to visit to medicine II OPD unit and all that records are furnished by the hospital and the hospital has not suppressed any materials. (b) It was also stated by the respondents/accused that there was not even an attempt to suppress any material or fabricate any records in the report dated 03.05.2011 by OG-I. Ex.P.19 letter dated 22.09.2005 states that after 17.04.2000, the patient has not come for evaluation till 27.08.2004 and it shows that the patient has not come to O.G.Unit for evaluation. But on 03.05.2001, the patient has visited OG and by mistake, this was not noticed and hence not mentioned in the letter. But the copy relating to visit on 03.05.2001 was in fact supplied by the hospital. The respondents further stated that Ex.P.19 is a correspondence based on instructions, where a single record was not looked into by oversight. At the same time, it is also clear that after 03.05.2001, the patient had not come to OG till 27.08.2004. (c) The respondents/accused further stated that the 1st petitioner had stated in her case that she visited Obstetrician and Gynaecology (OG) on 18.02.022, 27.05.2003, 30.09.2003 and 09.03.2004, but she failed to prove this aspect. But P.W.1/2nd petitioner assert in his oral evidence, that those dates were suppressed by the accused hospital, when her wife had not at all visited. The medical 7 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023records relating to 1st petitioner's visit in Medicine II OP Department are available for the next day to the dates mentioned above i.e 28.05.2003, 01.10.2003 and 10.03.2004. For the visit on 18.02.2002, medical report in Medicine II OP on the same day is available and since she had not visited OG, there would not be any records. Hence, without any records, their claim that she visited hospital on various dates without any proper evidence is a bald and vague allegations. (d) Further the respondents/accused denied the allegation that all the doctors with common intention had manipulated the records and if it is true, then the hospital would have certainly suppressed the report dated 31.08.2005, which states that the records are with Dr.Debasis Danda. (e) Further alteration of charge would not arise at all and Dr.Alice George has not signed in any of the records; except her seal, there is nothing to indicate that she had seen the patient. Because of the false allegations, a senior most doctor has been roped in as an accused merely because her seal was found to be in records. (f) Further, the complainant's contention that O.G.II seal was struck off on 30.09.2003 and that on 30.09.2003 patient got an appointment with O.G.II and 8 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023hence the chart was brought to OPD and the seal was affixed. Since the patient did not come to OG.II OPD, it was struck off. So also there is absolutely no material for the allegation of fake entries said to be made by Ex.P.1. (g) It is further stated that the defacto complainant wanted to harass all the accused in the hospital and the petitioners have come forward with the false claim. Therefore, the prayer seeking to frame additional charges against the accused is not maintainable but to be dismissed. 6. Based on the above averments in the application filed by the petitioners as well as the counter statement of the respondents 1 to 5/accused, the following are demonstrated:(a) The contention of the petitioners that the medical records pertaining to 1st petitioner treatment was tampered, wherein, the 3rd accused is said to have given a false reply in Ex.P.19 stating 1st petitioner has not come for treatment in OG. But the accused hospital administered Hormone Replacement Therapy for continuing more than 5 years without any evaluation and erased OG entries after 03.05.2001; further without noticing the doctor's notes recommendation and without noticing the symptoms she developed, the medical records were given to the 1st petitioner. As per Ex.P.2, no such warning was mentioned and there was also manipulation of the records. The medical records pertaining to 9 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023the 1st petitioner in respect of OG division has also been erased.(b) For the above contentions, the learned Trial Judge in the order dated 02.02.2023, concluded that on perusal of Ex.P.2, it reveals at page 10 of Ex.P.1, "complications of endoxen explained". The same was found in Ex.P.2, in page 11, wherein, it was mentioned as “details explained to the patient”. So there was sufficient endorsement in the medical records given to the 1st petitioner. Besides the trial Judge held that A-3 suggested the 1st petitioner Cyclophopamide 100 mg tablets daily and doctor would have explained the side effects since 1st petitioner was accompanied by her husband who is an advocate by profession. (c) The Trial Judge further held that as far as the contention of the petitioners that the side effects of the tablet was not properly explained is concerned, the same is unbelievable. It is not acceptable to state that Ex.P.1 is manipulated. Further more, erasing of medical records by A-2 with regard to visiting of hospital of the 1st petitioner before OG section , as such is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the contention of A-4, petitioners independently went to OG Division as per instruction of A-4 and consulted A-1 as per the admission made by the 2nd petitioner. But it was omitted to be mentioned. However, there is no intention on the side of the accused/doctors either to omit or manipulate the records on the part of the accused. Therefore, 10 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023the said allegation is an unwanted one.(d) Further, the Trial Judge also held that with regard to treatment of hormone replacement therapy gave to the 1st petitioner, as per the contention of the 2nd petitioner, without proper deliberations, treatment was started to her. But now claimed by P.W.1 as if the doctors orally discussed and the petitioners supported the 1st petitioner treatment. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that without proper deliberations, treatment was given, was not acceptable for the reason that at present petitioners also not produced relevant records that they continued treatment from 2001 to 2004. (e) Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Judge held that there is no evidence to prove that from the year 2001 to 2004, the 1st petitioner went to O.G.unit for the treatment, without which, the allegations levelled by the petitioners on the one hand and seeking to frame additional charge against the accused on the other hand, is not acceptable. The learned Trial Judge, accordingly dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.11658 of 2022 by order dated 02.02.2023.7. Challenging the said findings, the defacto complainant/revision petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision case. 11 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 20238. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the trial court failed to appreciate Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.22, wherein, the reply given by the accused in the hospital was contrary to the doctor's notes on their own handwriting in pages 22 and 23 of Ex.P.1. Besides that, the trial court also failed to take note of the striking of the date seal (O.G. II 30.09.2003) in page 36 of Ex.P.1 which amount to fabrication of document. Also the trial court failed to appreciate the visits to O.G.(Gen) Department and its recommendations which were recorded in page Nos.36, 37 and 38 of Ex.P.1 but stated that the victim did not visit O.G.department from the year 2000 to 2004.9. Further more, the finding of the trial Judge that the petitioners did not produce any payment receipts for O.G.Unit in between the year 2000 to 2004, is correct, because Ex.A.6 dated 30.09.1999, Ex.P.9 and P.10 payments on 30.05.2001 to the O.G.I Private consultation with A.4 and Ex.P.12 payment for Papsmear on 27.08.2004 is valid for three months period and the O.G.General Units visits were without any additional fee for consultation. Therefore, the trial court, without appreciating the manipulation of material records made by the hospital, erroneously dismissed the Crl.M.P.12 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 202310. To support the above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions:-(i) AIR 1925 ALL 413 (Mohan Singh vs. Emperor). In this decision it is held that the writings of the deceased doctor would be admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act as being a statement made by a dead person in the ordinary course of business and in the discharge of his profession duty. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is extracted as under:-" 9. The next piece of document is the post mortem report made by the Civil Surgeon, who is also unfortunately ow dead. This was done at the hospital when the dead body of the deceased as taken there. The evidence of the witness Nawab singh proves that he had accompanied the deceased body to the hospital and it was the body of the deceased Baldeo singh which was examined by the Civil Surgeon. Thus there can be no question as to its identity. This report would be admissible under section 32(2) of the Evidence Act as being a statement made by a dead person in the ordinary course of business and in the discharge of his professional duty. As we shall show later, even independently of this report, there is plenty of evidence to show that the head of the deceased was smashed and he died in consequence of these injuries. "(ii) 2004(8) SCC 56 (Smt.Savita Garg vs The Director, National Heart Institute). In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the hospital is in a better position to disclose what care was taken or what medicine was administered to 13 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023the patient and it is the duty of the hospital to satisfy that there was no lack or care or diligence. The relevant portion in Paragraph 10 is extracted as under:-" Once a patient is admitted in a hospital it is the responsibility of the Hospital to provide the best service and if it is not, then hospital cannot take shelter under the technical ground that the concerned surgeon or the nursing staff, as the case may be, was not impleaded, therefore, the claim should be rejected on the basis of non-joinder of necessary parties. In fact, once a claim petition is filed and the claimant has successfully discharged the initial burden that the hospital was negligent, as a result of such negligence the patient died, then in that case the burden lies on the hospital and the concerned doctor who treated that patient that there was no negligence involved in the treatment. Since the burden is on the hospital, they can discharge the same by producing that doctor who treated the patient in defence to substantiate their allegation that there was no negligence. In fact it is the hospital who engages the treating doctor thereafter it is their responsibility. The burden is greater on the Institution/ hospital than that of the claimant. The institution is private body and they are responsible to provide efficient service and if in discharge of their efficient service there are couple of weak links which has caused damage to the patient then it is the hospital which is to justify the same and it is not possible for the claimant to implead all of them as parties."(iii) (2010) 9 SCC 368 (Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation). In this decision, the Supreme Court has held that at the time of 14 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. In paragraph 21, it is held as follows:-"On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:-(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.15 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. "16 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 202311. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the above authorities well settled the position that once the petitioners produced sufficient materials to frame additional charges, it is not for the Judge concerned to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, but at the trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents. But the trial court failed to take note of the facts stated in the application and dismissed the same.12. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/accused A-1 to A-5 submits that from the year 2008 onwards, the accused are senior doctors of the reputed hospital and they are facing hardship. A-1 was falsely implicated and the other doctors are also harassed by the defacto complainants viz., 1st petitioner and her husband by making false allegations as if they have not given proper treatment and negligently gave the treatment. In fact, 1st petitioner/wife of the defacto complainant was suffering with multiple ailments, By analysing her health condition, proper treatment was given. Accordingly, her medical condition was assessed to her. Due to medical complications, she suffered with cancer. But the defacto complainant falsely claimed due to the continuous Hormone Replacement Therapy treatment without advising mammogram, she was facing cancer and 17 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023thereby in danger to the life, like infiltrating duct carcinoma grade II in the right breast. The doctors are ready to face the trial.13. This Court considered both side submissions and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 14. The learned trial Judge found that 2nd petitioner being the husband of the 1st petitioner, after examining him as P.W.1 marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. Thereafter they filed application in Crl.M.P.No.11658 of 2022 to frame additional charge against accused/doctors which is nothing but with the same set of allegations, they already filed another application in CMP.No.1102 of 2017. Further, the learned Judge held that the petitioners approached the court with inordinate delay i.e., after several years of framing charges and the reasons assigned by the petitioners was that since they have filed similar set of application in Crl.M.P.1102 of 2017 and the same was also dismissed on 15.06.2017 for the reason that the defacto complainant has not entered into witness box and at this stage altering of charges does not arise and accordingly, it was dismissed. Again for the same relief, the defacto complainant filed the present application in Crl.M.P.No.11658 of 2022. The learned Judge pointed out that since trial has now started, but the defacto complainant has not placed any material in support of their 18 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023contentions. Holding so, the trial court, rightly, dismissed the application as per Section 216 Cr.P.C. 15. The settled proposition of law is that additional charges can be altered at any stage, but when P.W.1 is an advocate by profession, and that when he knows legal procedures very well, without any materials he come forward with the application to alter the charge, as if doctors manipulated the records and thereafter the accused strike off the records from the file and therefore, the trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application. 16. It is evident from the records that the 1st petitioner is the wife; 2nd petitioner is the husband of 1st petitioner. According to the petitioners, 1st petitioner has approached A-1 hospital for the medical treatment from 1994 onwards for her disease systemio lupus Erythematosus (SLE) till 2005. She was continuously taking treatment. At the time of treatment, her husband P.W.2 who is an Advocate by profession also accompanied her. According to her, due to medical negligence, without properly analysing, medicines were administered and Hormone Replacement Therapy was given to her, due to which, she suffered with breast cancer. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the 6th respondent police. After investigation, a final report was filed. Thereafter, trial also begun. Statement of witnesses and deposition of P.W.1 and Exhibits P.1 to P.23 were marked. During the continuation of chief 19 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023examination, now the 2nd petitioner contended that there was manipulation of the medical records by the accused pertaining to her wife particularly Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and other Exhibits viz., Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.23. 17. The foremost contention of the petitioners is that Ex.P.1 doctor has made certain notes at Page 10 of the medical record that "Complication endoxen explained" which was inserted by the doctor/accused. Subsequently, one of the medical records given to her wife at Ex.P.2 , no such specification was mentioned but it was manipulated that details explained to patient. Further patient was prescribed to take Cyclophophamide 100 mg tablets daily and the side effects of the said Cyclophophamide tables has not been explained to his wife. Therefore, on such contentions, P.W.1 relied on Ex.A1 and contended that Ex.P.1 at page 10, doctor had subsequently inserted in the records with small size letters as if the “complications of endoxen explained”. But admittedly, trial was only began and the exhibits were produced before the court. Whether the medical notes were inserted or not has to be decided at the time of trial. Whether the small size letters were inserted in the said medical report even at the time of medical treatment or later has to be decided only at the time of trial. Therefore, the veracity of the said allegations made by the defacto complainant, has to be proved only at the time of trial and at this stage, the 20 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023said witness is prosecuting the case and the same was rightly observed by the trial Judge, which needs no interference by this court. 18. Further more, P.W.1 also raised another allegation that as per Ex.P.19, medical records by the hospital would state that on 18.02.2002, 27.05.2003, 30.09.2003 09.03.2004 and 27.08.2004, 1st petitioner has not attended the treatment to OG unit, but, according to P.W.1, his wife has attended the hospital on the said days for review treatment and thereby, the petitioners contended that on the said alleged dates, 1st petitioner as a general patient taken treatment from doctors and the said those medical records were removed from the records by the accused. 19. As per the reply given under Ex.P.19, those facts were denied by the respondent/accused stating that Ex.P.19 was given by the hospital authorities, one of the entries has not been properly noticed by oversight, when they given reply and that they have no intention to commit manipulation of records. But however in the year 2001, the petitioners contend that the accused altered medical records under ExP.4, but they paid the medical expenses and receipt also issued and the said receipt was also produced under Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.10. Therefore, as to whether any records were illegally removed by the hospital or whether as per the petitioners' contention, treatment was actually given to the 1st petitioner during the 21 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023period from 2001 to 2004, is a matter for trial and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be decided that the records were tampered by the accused and the same was rightly pointed out by the trial Judge, which requires no interference. 20. At the beginning of the trial i.e., when P.W.1 evidence was going, the petitioners have come forward to file the Crl.M.P., for additional charge under Sections 465, 201 read with 34 IPC. But it is well settled principle that at any stage of the proceedings, under section 219 Cr.P.., the court can alter or add the charges by considering the available evidence on record. When that being so, at the time of P.W.1 chief examination itself, by relying Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23, the petitioners have come forward with the application to frame additional charge as if manipulation of medical records and medical notes inserted, as such is not acceptable. As per the defacto complainants’ allegation, there was medical negligence on the part of the accused 1 to 5 and the same has to be decided after examination of the accused. At this stage, the petitioners have come forward with the allegations as if the accused tampered the medical records without any material evidence, nor without any proof, hence, it cannot be permitted and the same was rightly concluded by the trial Judge, which require no interference. 22 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 202321. The authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the facts of the said authorities are totally different from the facts of the case on hand. In such circumstances, the reasons assigned by the trial Judge for dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.11658 of 2022, requires no interference. 22. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the doctors viz., respondents 2 to 5, for all these years were put to much hardship and they are ready to cooperate for the trial. 23. In such view of the matter and in the light of the foregoing observation, both the parties are directed to cooperate for the speedy trial and disposal of the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore in S.T.C.No.224 of 2008 as early as possible. 24. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above direction. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 17-09-2025nvsriNeutral Citation:Yes/No23 / 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023T.V.THAMILSELVI J.nvsriTo1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore.2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2023 17-09-202524 / 24