Dr. Philip Mitta alias Dr. Philip Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Philip Mitta alias Dr. Philip, S/o. Dr. D.S. Mitta, Plot No.530-A, Defence Colony, Secunderabad and Practicing at Christian Hospital, Narsapuram Now residing at E-26, 3rd Crescent Road, Sainikpuri Secunderabad-500094

¶10

Narsapuram Christian Hospital Management Rep. by Dr. L.K. Thomas, B.Sc., MBBS, LM, DCO

¶11

...Petitioners/A-1& A-2

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. through S.H.O., Narsapuram Town P.S.

¶14

...Respondent No.1

¶15

1. Sri Tiwari Ravi Prasad, S/o. Ram Mohan Prasad, R/o.D.^No.16-06- 2016 Mamidivari Street, Narsapuram.

¶16

...Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioners/Accused in case in C.C. No. 455 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.455 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms P.M Sunitha Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Babuji Tenneti

¶21

The Court made the following order:

1

[3396]

«fc

APHC010035722020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 552/2020

¶31

Between:

¶32

1.DR. PHILIP MITTA ALIAS DR. PHILIP, S/0. DR. D.S. MITTA, PLOT NO.530-A, DEFENCE COLONY, SECUNDERABAD AND PRACTICING AT CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL, NARSAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT E- 26, 3RD CRESCENT ROAD, SAINIKPURI SECUNDERABAD-500094

¶33

2.NARSAPURAM CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT REP. BY DR. L.K. THOMAS, B.SC.,MBBS, LM, DCO

¶34

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶35

AND

¶36

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. THROUGH S.H.O., NARSAPURAM TOWN P.S.

¶37

2.SRI TIWARI RAVI PRASAD, S/0. RAM MOHAN PRASAD R/O.D. NO.16-06-2016 MAMIDIVARI STREET, NARSAPURAM.

¶38

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶39

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum^ofGrounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioners/Accused in case in C.C. No. 455/2018^{onthefileofAdditional} Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West^{GodavariDistrict,}

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

"f" *■

2

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 455/2018 on the file of Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶45

1.G RONALD RAJU

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶47

1.BABUJITENNETI

¶48

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶49

3

¶50

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶51

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 552/2020

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure/ under Section 528 of BNSS., has been filed by the Petitioners/Ac cused Nos.1 & 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.455 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District in Crime No. 150 of 2016 of Narsapuram Town Police Station, Narsapuram, registered under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.,).

¶54

Heard Ms.P.M.Sunitha, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accuse^d Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice is served on the respondent No.2 and Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the respondent No.2^is on record.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that the deceased in this case underwent Hysterectomy Laparoscopic surgery in the hospital of the petitioner No.2/accused No.2. Accused No.1 has conducted the surgery. Learned counsel would further submit that after the surgery, the patient has developed some complications. She was shifted to Bhimavaram for better treatment and then to Guntur and she died at Guntur. Learned counsel would further submit that after the surgery, she was in the hospital of Accused No.2 for only four (4) days but she stayed in the hospital at Bhimavaram for fourteen (14) days. There is no nexus between the surgery

¶56

4

¶57

and the death of the patient. Learned counsel would^{furthersubmitthatthe} question of vicarious liability does not arise in criminal case and the hospital is not responsible for the act of the Doctor.

¶58

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the petition stating that the police, after due investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners. The report of the Medical^Board is clear to the effect that prima facie there is verifiable material against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, it is not a fit case for quashment. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays of dismissal of the petition.

¶59

Considering the submissions made and a fair look at^{thematerialon} record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Medical Board report would prima facie show that there is negligence on the part of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 leading to the death of the victim^{inthiscase.Whenthe} verifiable material is there on record, this Court^{cannotexerciseitsdiscretion} for quashment of such case. The matter requires a detailed enquiry before the Trial Court. In that view, the Criminal Petition is^{liabletobedismissed.}

¶60

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners^{wouldsubmitthat} the presence of the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and^{2beforetheTrialCourt} may be dispensed with.

¶61

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the aforementioned premises, the Criminal^Petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the

¶62

5

¶63

%

¶64

Trial Court is dispensed with unless their presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court.

¶65

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶66

closed.

¶67

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR