The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 160 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 160 of 2016 Niranjan Sen Gupta … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Rahul Keshri ----- … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. : Mr. Ranish Kumar, A.C. to Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate ----- 04/07.12.2023 Heard Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ranish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2015 in connection with C.P. Case No.891/2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant's wife Mrs. Bharti Keshri was not able to conceive after her marriage and she was under treatment of Dr. S.K. Das since 23.02.2015 and after medical tests Bulky uterus with thickened endometrium with multiple fibroids was detected and as per the advice of Dr. S.K. Das, she was admitted to Asharfi Hospital, Dhanbad on 25.03.2015 for treatment and minor operation. But at the time of the performance of operation, the Anesthesiologist Dr. Raj Kumar Singh was not on duty and in his absence, Anesthesia was done by Dr. Arpita Das and due to the overdose of medicine, the wife of complainant died in operation theatre and then the Hospital authority admitted the dead body of the complainant's wife to I.C.U. for recovery due amount of 2 Cr.M.P. No. 160 of 2016 treatment from the complainant. The accused person concealed the fact of death of Mrs. Bharti Keshri from her husband and relatives for many hours, but ultimately, the power of endurance of complainant drop down and they entered into the I.C.U. and found the dead body of Bharti Keshri was lying in I.C.U. and the jewellery and other wearing apparels of the complainant's wife was also missing and when they raised objection for this rash and negligent act, the doctor and hospital authority assaulted him mercilessly. 4. Mr. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that there is no allegation, so far as this petitioner is concerned and in spite of that, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was associated with Asharfi Hospital Limited w.e.f. 17.01.2011 and he left the said Hospital on 16.08.2013. To buttress this argument, he refers the document issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, contained in Annexure-4. He also submits that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and Certificate to that effect is contained in Annexure-2. He submits that the allegations are made that in the hospital, the death of the complainant's wife occurred. He submits that even the petitioner is not having medical role in the said Hospital. He further submits that the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 304A/323/379/120B of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that none of the sections under which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners are made out, so far as this petitioner is concerned. 5. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the learned Court after going through the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner and there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 3 Cr.M.P. No. 160 of 2016 6. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that on the complaint petition, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. 7. The Court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition and finds that the petitioner has been made accused no.8 in the capacity of Director Finance of Asharfi Hospital Private Limited. There are allegations against accused nos. 5 and 9 to go through the report of the deceased and advised for minor operation. Further allegations are there against accused nos. 5 and 9 that after conducting few more medical tests of the deceased, which were found normal, minor operation was advised. In each and every paragraphs of the complaint petition, the allegations are made against accused nos. 5 and 9 and the petitioner has been made an accused as accused no.8. 8. In the complaint petition itself, there is no allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner happened to be a Chartered Accountant, which is fortified in view of Annexure-2, which is a Certificate issued for practice. Annexure-3 is the document issued by the Director of Asharfi Hospital dated 02.07.2014, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner has resigned from the Board of Directors of Asharfi Hospital and his personal guarantee ceases to exist in the credit facility extended by the Bank. The document issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs at Annexure-4 clearly suggests that the petitioner was working with the said Hospital in the capacity of the Director Finance w.e.f. 17.01.2011 and he resigned on 16.08.2013. 9. It appears that there is no allegation of assault against the petitioner and thus, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 160 of 2016 10. There is no allegation of theft against the petitioner and in view of that, Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. 11. For attracting Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, there is requirement of rash and negligent act and necessary ingredients, which are lacking in the case in hand. 12. In view of these facts, to allow to continue the proceeding, will amount to abuse of process of law. 13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, so far as this petitioner is concerned, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2015 in connection with C.P. Case No.891/2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are quashed. 14. This Court has not interfered with the complaint case and order taking cognizance, so far as other accused are concerned. 15.
Decision
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)