Dismissed

Dharmendra Kumar Saini v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024A482/27714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings under Section 304 IPC against an applicant claiming to be distinct from Dr. D.K. Singh named in the FIR. Comparing records of an earlier writ petition, the court found the applicant had concealed material facts and filed petitions under different names, dismissing it with exemplary costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharmendra Kumar Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196087

¶3

Court No. - 78

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27714 of 2024

¶5

Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 05.04.2024, summoning order dated 03.06.2024, as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 297 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C. read with Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, registered at P.S. Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar, pending trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He submits that on 06.07.2023, a patient was admitted to Navjeevan Hospital, Uska Bazar, Siddharth Nagar, and the operation was conducted by Dr. D.K. Singh and Dr. Om Prakash Prajapati on 14.07.2023 in the presence of nurse Geeta Prajapati. The patient was discharged on 17.07.2023 but later passed away while under treatment at Asraf Memorial Hospital. The postmortem report suggests that the cause of death was septicaemia.

¶10

The applicant argues that he is not Dr. D.K. Singh, whose name appears in the FIR. Instead, he is Dharmendra Kumar Saini,

¶11

¶12

unconnected to Dr. D.K. Singh. He asserts that he is employed at Ankit Lal Hospital, Ashok Nagar, Sheetalganj, Banshi, earning a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month in cash. Additionally, there was a delay of over two months in lodging the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution.

¶13

In response, learned A.G.A. opposed the application, relying on the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19006 of 2023, titled Dr. D.K. Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. He argued that the applicant has been operating under multiple identities and impersonating as Dr. D.K. Singh at Navjeevan Hospital, Uska Bazar, Siddharth Nagar.

¶14

To verify the applicant’s claims, the records of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19006 of 2023 were summoned. Upon examination, it was revealed that the said writ petition was filed by one Dr. D.K. Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar, son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of Gangi Bazar, Maharajganj. The record further indicated that the applicant was employed at Alok Hospital, Paniyara, Maharajganj, and had no legitimate association with Navjeevan Hospital, Siddharth Nagar.

¶15

The petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19006 of 2023 annexed a renewed Medical Establishment Certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Maharajganj, in the name of Dharmendra Kumar, son of Rajkumar, residing in Gangi Bazar, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. An Aadhaar Card was also submitted as proof, showing the petitioner’s details as Dharmendra Kumar, born on 15.01.1988, Aadhaar No. 564393560247, with an address in Gangi Bazar, Maharajganj.

¶16

¶17

Upon comparing the details mentioned in both petitions, it has been established that Dr. D.K. Singh and Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Saini are the same person. The Aadhaar Card annexed to the instant application, along with the photograph and father's name, matches those in the prior petition.

¶18

During the proceedings, the applicant also submitted certain documents in support of his qualifications. These documents were forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, for verification. The S.S.P., Gorakhpur, is directed to verify the authenticity of these documents, and if found to be forged, appropriate action shall be taken as per law.

¶19

Thus, it can safely be concluded that the instant application has been filed by concealing material facts and making false assertions to obtain a favourable order. The Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner has sought to mislead the Court by filing multiple petitions under different names for the same relief. Accordingly, the present petition is found to be misconceived, frivolous, and an abuse of the legal process. Such conduct burdens the judiciary with baseless litigation, thereby wasting valuable judicial time, and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶20

Therefore, in light of the foregoing discussion, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand). The applicant is directed to deposit the said amount within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order into the account of the District Court Legal Services Authority. In case of non-compliance, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, and deposit the same with DLSA, Gorakhpur. The learned District Judge shall ensure the compliance of this order.

¶21

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the adjudication of the present application and shall not affect the merits of the case during trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.12.2024

¶24

Shafique

¶25

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Kumar Saini v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dharmendra Kumar Saini v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases