Bombay High Court
Dr.Sheshrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 December, 2012
Bench: A. H. Joshi, S.P. Deshmukh
1 Cri.A.4744.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4744 OF 2012
1. Dr.Sheshrao S/o Shankarrao Shinde,
Age 39 Years, Occup. Medical
Practitioner, R/o Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector,
Police Station Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.ig
3. Mohan S/o Baburao Lakhane,
Age : 43 Years, occup. Private Service,
R/o Gandhinagar, Nilanga,
Dist.: Latur ...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri S.M.Vibhute,Advocate for applicant.
Smt. V.A.Shinde,APP for respondents No.1
Shri S.P.Urgunde,Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
CORAM: A.H.JOSHI AND
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 19.12.2012.
JUDGMENT : ( Per : A.H.Joshi, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
by consent, finally.
2. By this application, the applicant prays for
quashing of Crime No. 91 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012,
registered at Police Station, Nilanga District Latur
2 Cri.A.4744.12
for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicant's case and grievance in summary is
as follows:-
(i) Wife of respondent no. 2 died during
treatment due to effect of the venom of scorpion
bite.
(ii) The Police have registered the offence in
that regard against the applicant under Section
304A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) While registering the offence, the procedure
directed through two reported judgments of Supreme
Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. The State
of Punjab and
others reported in 2005 AIR SCW
3685 and Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd Ishfaq
reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1807 and guidelines as
prescribed and laid down by the Government of
Maharashtra through Government Resolution dated
26th March, 2010 are not followed.
4. This application is strongly opposed by both the
respondents.
5. In the midst of hearing, Investigating Officer
has tendered a copy of the letter dated 17.12.2012
3 Cri.A.4744.12
sent by him to the Civil Surgeon, Latur in present
case.
6. The learned APP states on instructions from the
Investigating Officer that further investigation will
be carried out only after receiving report from the
Civil Surgeon.
7. At this stage, the learned Advocate for
petitioner states that in the light of assurance of
by the Investigating Officer that further
investigation would be carried out after receiving
report from Civil Surgeon Latur, the FIR needs to be
quashed and need to register a crime, if any, can be
decided by the Police only after receiving report of
the Committee of experts under the leadership of Civil
Surgeon.
8. We are of the considered view that though FIR is
registered and the Police have assured to proceed with
further investigation after examining the report as
may be received from the Civil Surgeon, Latur, we find
that quashing of FIR would be an empty ritual.
Investigation furtherance to the FIR may have to be
4 Cri.A.4744.12
proceeded or dropped depending on the out come of
opinion from experts.
9. We, therefore, accept the statement of the
Investigating Officer based on the letter dated
17.12.2012 given by him to the Civil Surgeon, Latur,
as adequate protection to the applicant, and dispose
of the present application.
10. Rule is accordingly disposed.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.] [A.H.JOSHI, J.]
MTK
