Dr. Ravindra Yadu Vs Chhattisgarh Woman Commission

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:27032

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 926 of 2025

¶6

1 - Dr. Ravindra Yadu S/o Late Narayan Prasad Yadu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Gadadeeh, Police Station Utai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Chhattisgarh Woman Commission Through Its President, Address Beside Chief Election Commission, Shashtri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Smt. Jyoti Nagey Wd/o Rakesh Nagey Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bodal, Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The Station House Officer Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Advocate
For Resp. No. 3/State	: Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy,GA
For Respondent No.2	: Shri Ashwin Panicker, Advocate

¶13

2

¶14

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

23/06/2025

¶17

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):

¶18

10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the complaint of respondent No.2 dated 10.01.2023 made to respondent No.1 against the petitioner.

¶19

10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the complete proceeding of respondent No.1 against the petitioner in unregistered case ie. Annexure P/4.

¶20

10.3. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶21

10.4 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner is a doctor having license issued by the State Government for Ayurved and Unani Chikitsa Padhdhati. The husband of the respondent No.2 Rakesh Nagey was suffering from stomach pain and dysentery for which he was under treatment from the petitioner and when he did not get relief went to another hospital where during treatment he died on 10.02.2022. After his death, police registered merg intimation and after conducting post mortem examination and investigation by the police, closure report was filed and submitted before the SDM, Durg. Being dissatisfied with the investigation and the closure report, the respondent No.2 approached the respondent No.1 by making application dated 10.01.2023 and after

¶23

3

¶24

taking cognizance initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

¶25

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings as initiated by the respondent No.1 upon the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2 is illegal, unconstitutional, against the provisions of Cr.P.C and BNSS. He submits that the police had not investigated the case properly and that the respondent No.2 if not satisfied, she had a remedy under the Cr.P.C. of the new act to approach the competent court of law.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/Chhattisgarh Woman Commission submits that petitioner is seeking relief of quashment of complaint filed by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner is not cooperating and coming forward as to the cognizance taken by the commission and when the commission enquired about his qualification and degree, he immediately filed this petition to avoid the proceedings of the commission. It is submitted that the petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the husband of respondent No.2 was working as driver on Contract at BSP Plant and on 11.02.2022, when he was on night duty, was suffering from dysentery and he was taken to the clinic of the petitioner at village Gadadih where he prescribed some medicine and gave two injections. After consuming the medicine, his condition deteriorated and he was shifted to District hospital where he was declared brought dead. Thereafter, merg intimation was recorded and investigation was conducted and the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

¶28

4

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶30

It appears that the allegation of giving two injections to the deceased and medicines prescribed were consumed by him and due to which he died. Merg has been lodged by the police and after due investigation, closure report has been filed before the competent authority. FSL report reveals that no poison was found on the viscera of the deceased. Merg intimation has been filed before the SDM under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 has made a complaint against the petitioner before the CG Mahila Aayog which has statutory authority under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Mahila Aayog Act, 1995.

¶31

On perusal of the record it is clear that no order has been passed by the Mahila Aayog against the petitioner. The commission has enquired that the investigation against the petitioner is still pending and the Commission in its order dated 19^th December 2024 has taken cognizance and enquire about his qualification and degree but the petitioner instead of cooperating, had immediately come before this Court. There is no ground to entertain this petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Sd-

¶33

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶34

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY Date: DUBEY 2025.06.25 17:20:56 +0530

Dr. Ravindra Yadu v. Chhattisgarh Woman Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ravindra Yadu v. Chhattisgarh Woman Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikahat Parveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dankeshwar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mirnal Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh