Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi Aastha Child And Mother Care ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2581 of 2024
1. Ranchi Aastha Child and Mother Care Private Ltd., a company
incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office
at H-214, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora,
Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002, through one of its director Dr.
Sunita Mishra @ Sunita Kumari, w/o Dr. Rajeev Mishra, aged about
61 years, R/o H-214, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-
Argora, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002
2. Dr. Sunita Mishra @ Sunita Kumari, w/o Dr. Rajeev Mishra, aged
about 61 years, R/o H-214, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Doranda,
P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002
.... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Nischay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A. III
: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA III
For the Informant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceeding including the FIR in connection with Argora P.S. Case
No. 106 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
269, 270, 406, 420, 304A/34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.2 is a gynecologist
and one of the directors of the petitioner no.1. The wife of the
informant was admitted in the petitioner no.1 hospital. She
underwent cesarean section. Postoperatively, she had a drop in urine
output for which she was referred to Paras hospital, where the wife
of the informant underwent dialysis. During the treatment at Paras
hospital, the wife of the informant developed other organ
dysfunctions including sepsis for which treatment was started as per
surviving sepsis guidelines. While undergoing the treatment at Paras
hospital, the patient's family took a questioned decision, by choosing
to leave the Paras hospital against medical advice and she was
admitted in ICU of RIMS, Ranchi but again the family members of
the deceased decided to transfer, the said wife of the informant to
another center after getting her discharged against medical advice,
from RIMS and the wife of the informant died on the way of being
taken to Dhanbad.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners have not committed any act or omission which
constitutes any offence. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that there is no allegation of any cheating by the
petitioners nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation
of any property against the petitioners hence, neither the offence
punishable under Section 420 nor the offence punishable under
Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners,
even if the entire allegation made against them are considered to be
in their entirety. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the cause of death may be because of shifting the
deceased while she was undergoing the treatment from two different
hospitals by getting her discharged against medical advice from
Paras hospital which is having super specialty facility and the
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi which is one of the
premier hospitals, in the State of Jharkhand having a medical college
with facility for super speciality study in several branches of medical
science. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the medical board constituted in view of the principle of law
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jacob
Mathew vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1
and which was headed by Head of Department and Professor of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, RIMS, with the professors and Head of
Departments of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine and
Department of Anesthesia as members, has categorically opined that
the treatment at petitioner no.1 hospital and Paras hospital was of
good quality and there was no negligence in treatment of the said
wife of informant, in either of these centers. It is further submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any
negligence of the petitioners and in the absence of any negligence,
none of the offences punishable under Section 304A, or under
Sections 269 or under section 270 of the Indian Penal Code is made
out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that continuation
of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner no.1 which is a
renowned hospital and the petitioner no.2 who is the specialized
gynecologist at Ranchi having untarnished image of practice for past
25 years will amount to abuse of process of law. It is next submitted
that the F.I.R. has been lodged for the purpose of the wreaking
vengeance. Hence, it submitted that the prayer as made in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. Learned G.A. III fairly submits that during the investigation in
terms of guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Jacob Mathew vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the
medical board was constituted and the said medical Board has
categorically opined that the petitioner no.1 or Paras hospital
provided good quality treatment to the deceased and there was no
negligence in either of these centers in treatment of the wife of the
informant.
6. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the
prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits
that the allegation made in the FIR is sufficient to constitute all the
offences for which the FIR has been registered. It is next submitted
by the learned counsel for the informant by relying upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Chandan Thakur @ Chandan
Kumar Thakur vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No.
226 of 2018 dated 14.07.2024; that in that case this Court relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Monica (Dr.) & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 781 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled principle of law that a legitimate prosecution
cannot be stifled by the Court in exercise of the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous
petition being without any merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of
cheating or dishonest misappropriation of the property or money
entrusted to them. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the
considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence
punishable under Sections 420 or 406 of Indian Penal Code is not
made out.
8. In view of the undisputed fact that the medical board which was
constituted in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.
(supra) has categorically opined that the treatment provided at
petitioner no.1 and Paras hospital was good quality and there was no
negligence in either of the centers; so, in the absence of any
negligence on the part of the petitioners, the offences punishable
under Section 304A, 269 or 270 of Indian Penal Code is not made out,
against the petitioners.
9. In the absence of any material in the record to show that any
offence for which the FIR was registered is made out against the
petitioners certainly the prosecution cannot be termed as legitimate
prosecution rather it is a prosecution for the purpose of wreaking
vengeance which is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the ratio of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Monica (Dr.) & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Supra) is not
applicable to the facts of this case.
10. In view of the discussions made above, as, even if the entire
allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in
its entirety still none of the offences for which the FIR has been
registered is made out against the petitioners, hence, this Court is of
the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding in
connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024, against the
petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit
case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in
connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 be quashed and set
aside qua the petitioners only.
11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in
connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioners only.
12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th September, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
