Dr.Sridharala Srinivas For ... vs K.Badrinath And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5216 Tel

      HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                          AT HYDERABAD
                              *****

            Criminal Petition No.14168 OF 2016

Between:

Rakshitha Hospital and another
                                                        ... Petitioners

                            And

1. K.Badrinath
2. The State of Telangana, rep. by
   its Public Prosecutor,High Court
   for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
                                                   ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:               20.10.2022

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER



 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to see            Yes/No
      the Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                        Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals

 3    Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
      wish to see the fair copy of the            Yes/No
      Judgment?

                                                  ________________
                                                   K.SURENDER, J
                                      2



          * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                         + CRL.P. No. 14168 of 2016


% Dated 20.10.2022

# Rakshitha Hospital and another
                                                       ... Petitioners

                            And
$1. K.Badrinath
  2. The State of Telangana, rep. by
     its Public Prosecutor,High Court
     for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
                                                      ... Respondents



! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy


^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
  (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1
                                        3


            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.14168 OF 2016

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.315 of 2015 of

Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are

accused Nos.1 & 2 in the said crime. The offences alleged against them

are under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.

3. The 1st respondent/defacto complainant filed a private complaint

stating that he went to the 1st accused hospital as he was suffering from

giddiness. The 2nd accused/doctor allegedly informed that the 1st

respondent was suffering with severe ill-health and advised him to get

admitted in the hospital, otherwise his life would be in danger.

Accordingly, the 1st respondent was admitted in the hospital and was

forced to undergo several investigations which incurred an expenditure

of Rs.80,000/-. The 1st respondent went to another hospital and the

doctor having verified the case history informed the complainant that

the tests were not necessary and he was asked to unnecessarily

consume medicines which only deteriorated the health of the

complainant. The said complaint was referred to police for investigation

and the Chaitanyapuri Police accordingly registered the FIR.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy for

petitioners would submit that no case is made out for the offence of

cheating, criminal misappropriation under Sections 420 and 406 of the

Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the 2nd petitioner is a

doctor of repute and Senior Consultant Neuro-Surgeon, who on the

basis of his expertise has advised the petitioner to undergo tests in

order to diagnose the problem and having found the reasons for the ill-

health of complainant, advised to take medication. He further argued

that a complaint was also filed before the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy, and the said Forum found that the

complainant/1st respondent was not subjected to unnecessary tests and

medication by the petitioners herein; and that the complainant was

discharged after undergoing proper treatment and accordingly there

was no deficiency of service. The said finding of the District forum was

not questioned before the State Forum.

5. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the Judgment of the

Honourable Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and

another1 wherein the Three Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme

Court had framed guidelines in prosecuting the medical professionals.

(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1

6. To attract an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of

the IPC, there has to be mis-representation pursuant to which a person

must have been induced and parted with property. In the present case,

the complainant had taken professional help from the doctor and on the

basis of his knowledge and expertise the doctor suggested the

complainant to undergo tests and also prescribed medication to be

taken on regular basis. The medication suggested by the doctor on the

basis of the reports and tests conducted cannot be said to be an act of

cheating. For the reason of the complainant assuming that the tests

were not warranted, cannot be made basis of criminal prosecution.

Neither the complainant nor the police investigating the case are

experts in the field of medical science to determine whether the steps

taken by the 2nd petitioner/doctor were unnecessary. Except stating in

the complaint that the course of treatment suggested by the 2nd

petitioner was not endorsed by an unnamed doctor, it cannot be said

that the treatment given to the complainant amounts to cheating.

7. Further, the question of attracting the offence under Section 406

of the Indian Penal Code does not arise for the reason of there being no

entrustment whatsoever. An act to fall within the four corners of Section

406 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be established that some

property which is entrusted to a person has been misappropriated. In

the present case, there is no entrustment. As such, the question of

misappropriation does not arise.

8. The bench of the District Consumer Forum after a detailed

inquiry having examined witnesses has found that the allegation of

unnecessary treatment and medication was found to be false. Further,

the bench also found that complainant was treated in the hospital and

was discharged. More so, there were no acts which are committed by

these petitioners amounting to any acts which require to be interfered

with by the Forum for granting compensation. The said order and

finding of the District Consumer forum were not agitated by filing

appeal before the State Forum and had become final.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 406

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are clear abuse of the process and are

consequently liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.315 of 2015 of

Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Hyderabad.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal

petition, shall stand closed.

________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt:20.10.2022 tk Note: L.R.copy

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14168 OF 2016

Dt. 20.10.2022

tk