Dr. Sushrat S/O Shrichandra ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 4228 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Dr. Sushrat S/O Shrichandra ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2024

Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

                                                   -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:3194
                                                           CRL.P No. 103024 of 2022




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                            DHARWAD BENCH
                                DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                                 BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
                                  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103024 OF 2022
                      BETWEEN:
                      DR. SUSHRAT S/O SHRICHANDRA KADALAGIKAR,
                      AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. RAVIVAR PET,
                      GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.
                                                                        ... PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION,
                           GOKAK, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
                           DHARWAD.

                      2.   IRAPPA S/O VENKAPPA BADIGER,
                           AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. CARPENTER,
                           R/O. VADDAR HATTI, TALUK. GOKAK,
                           DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.
                                                                      ... RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
         Digitally
         signed by
         MANJANNA
                       SRI. H.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
MANJANNA E
E        Date:
         2024.02.14
         14:36:04
         +0530
                             THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
                      SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING OF COGNIZANCE
                      AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS BY ITS ORDER DATED 22.07.2014
                      PASSED BY THE PRL. JMFC GOKAK IN C.C.NO.2040/2014, FOR THE
                      OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.304(A) OF IPC IN SO FAR AS
                      PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
                      EQUITY.
                             THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                      THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:3194
                                         CRL.P No. 103024 of 2022




                             ORDER

1. This petition is filed challenging the registration of

an FIR against the petitioner, who is a Doctor.

2. The allegation in the complaint was that the

complainant's wife was not attended to properly and despite

requests being made to deliver the baby by caesarean section,

no action was taken and ultimately, it was informed to the

complainant that a delivery was conducted, in which there was

a stillborn child. On the basis of the complaint, a crime has

been registered and it has also culminated in the filing of a

charge sheet.

3. Indisputably, before registration of the criminal

proceedings, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in

Jacob Mthew V/s. State of Punjab and others, reported in

AIR 2005 SC 3180 has to be followed.

4. In the above said judgment, one of the primary

requirements to establish gross negligence is that the

investigating officer before proceeding against the doctor

should obtain an independent and competent medical opinion,

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3194

preferably from a doctor in Government Service qualified in

that branch of medical practice.

5. Admittedly, in the present case, no such opinion

has been taken and the police have proceeded to prosecute the

petitioner merely on the basis of the complaint that had been

lodged by the second respondent.

6. In view of the above, it is obvious that the

proceedings are completely vitiated and cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings are

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB/CT:BCK