Bombay High Court
Dr. Roshan S/O. Manoharlal ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... on 10 February, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.APL No.993.18 J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.993 OF 2018
Dr. Roshan S/o. Manoharlal Bhiwapurkar,
Aged about : 43 years,
Occ.: Medical Practitioner.
R/o. Near Flyover, Dighori Chowk,
Taj Bagh, Umred Road, Sakkardara,
Nagpur, Maharashtra 440034. ....APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Sakkardara Police Station,
Nagpur City, Nagpur.
2. Shri Nitin S/o. Late Ashok Dadwe,
Aged Major, Occ.: Not Known,
R/o. Plot No. F-1, Gurudev Nagar,
Hudkeshwar, Nagpur. .... NON-APPLICANTS
Shri W. T. Mathew, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri C. M. Samarth, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 10.02.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard Shri W. T. Mathew, learned Advocate for the
applicant, Shri T. A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/
State and Shri C. M. Samarth, learned Advocate for the non-
applicant No.2.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging registration of the
First Information Report bearing No.136/2013 alongwith charge-
sheet No.144/2014 registered with the Non-applicant No.1 - Police
Station for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicant with the accusations that the victim suffered
head injury in an accident. It is further alleged that when the victim
was admitted in the hospital of applicant, there were no facilities
available in the hospital and only first-aid was provided to the
victim by the applicant, but there was no improvement in the
condition of the victim and therefore, the applicant advised the
relatives of the victim to get C.T. Scan done from another C.T. Scan
Center and thereafter, the victim was admitted in the Lata
Mangeshkar Hospital for further treatment. The victim was
thereafter, declared as dead. The applicant has therefore, filed the
present application challenging registration of the First Information
Report.
5. This Court on 11.06.2019 issued notice to the non-
applicants. During pendency of the application, on 29.12.2014, the
charge-sheet No.144/2014 was filed in the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, Corporation Court, Nagpur.
6. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply on 01.01.2021
and it is stated that when the victim was admitted in the hospital of
applicant, proper medical treatment was not provided. It is further
stated that there was delay in conducting C.T. scan of the victim. It
is further stated that the victim was in dire need of immediate
medical treatment as well as diagnosis which includes C.T. scan of
his brain. The applicant was aware of the said fact that the C.T. scan
machine at his hospital was not working. That caused unnecessary
delay in the treatment of the victim. It is stated that inaction on the
part of the applicant to refer victim to C. T. scan immediately
amounts to gross negligence.
7. The non-applicant No.2 has also filed reply and it is
stated that the issues raised by the applicant can be adjudicated at
the time of trial and the prosecution need not be quashed at its
threshold.
8. We have carefully considered the contents of the First
Information Report. The First Information Report contains
allegations against the applicant only to the extent that the hospital
of the applicant was not having proper facilities and it is the
applicant who is responsible for the death of the victim. The
charge-sheet which has been filed on record by the applicant
contains report of Enquiry Committee consisting of five Medical
Professionals. The said committee was constituted in view of letter
of request by the Police Sub-Inspector, Sakkardara, Nagpur. The
report of Committee of five Medical Professionals had given their
opinion stating that the victim was provided with emergency
treatment and due care was taken. In answer to a question as to
whether the delay in surgical intervention was due to negligence of
concerned doctor, the Committee had opined that there is
discrepancy between the statement of the concerned doctor and
relatives about essential investigations and request for discharge.
On the answer to the question as to whether both surgical
intervention of the chest and brain was done by the doctor
immediately, could the patient be cured, was answered by the
Committee stating that the prognosis of the victim cannot be
predicted.
9. Having considered the allegations in the First
Information Report and the report of Committee of the Experts,
which have categorically opined that the applicant has provided
emergency treatment and had given due care to the victim, we are
of the considered view that registration of the First Information
Report on the basis of the information provided by the relatives of
the victim, could not have been registered against the applicant. We
are, therefore, satisfied that the continuation of the proceedings
against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of Court.
10. We therefore, pass the following order.
The First Information Report bearing No.136/2013
alongwith Charge-Sheet No.144/2014 registered with the Non-
applicant No.1 - Police Station against the applicant for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is quashed
and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
