Dismissed

Pooja & Anr. v. State of NCT & Anr.

Delhi HC15 May 2024CRL.M.C./2163/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Delhi High Court entertained a petition challenging alleged vague charges of dowry harassment (Section 498A IPC) and causing death (Section 304 IPC). The court dismissed the petition, granting liberty to withdraw it pending trial court arguments.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to withdraw petition and raise arguments before the Trial Court on 02.07.2024.

Pooja & Anr. Vs State of NCT & Anr. — Medical Negligence | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~27

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2163/2019

¶4

POOJA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Jayant Bhatt and Ms. Vaidehi Singh, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State along with SI Pooja Saraswat, PS Malviya Nagar. Mr. Udayan Khandelwal, Advocate for R-2 (through VC).

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 15.05.2024

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only vague allegations had been made against the petitioners in regard to the demand of dowry and the same are not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’) against the petitioners.

¶7

He submits that no specific instance has been alleged against the petitioners in regard to offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

¶8

He further submits that Section 304 of the IPC is added in the present case as appropriate treatment was allegedly not provided to the deceased.

¶9

He submits that the deceased was married to the brother of the petitioners and she was pregnant. He submits that it was not the responsibility of the petitioners to provide adequate medical

¶10

CRL.M.C. 2163/2019 Page 1 of 2

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2024 at 11:32:31

¶13

treatment to her.

¶14

He further submits that vague allegations have been made that the petitioners and their family members refused to take the deceased to a particular nursing home.

¶15

He submits that the same does not, in any manner, point towards the offence under Section 304 of the IPC against the petitioners.

¶16

It is pointed out that the matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 02.07.2024 for arguments on charge.

¶17

In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw the present petition and raise all arguments before the learned Trial Court.

¶18

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶19

Needless to say, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court in case any grievance remains.

¶20

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶21

MAY 15, 2024 mk

¶22

CRL.M.C. 2163/2019 Page 2 of 2

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2024 at 11:32:31

Pooja & Anr. v. State of NCT & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja & Anr. v. State of NCT & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayush & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Suraj Vs the State

Vinay Pratap @Shyamveer through Parokar Mahendra Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Veer Pratap Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors.

Sunita Vs Dharmendra Gautam

Shamsher Kalra Vs State of NCT of Delhi