Allowed

Dr. Chandrashekar S/O. Sharanapap Neeralagi v. Vadeyar Sreedhar S/O Rohith Swamy

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022CRL.P/100731/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two doctors accused of causing leg amputation due to alleged medical negligence. The court held that absence of credible medical opinion from another competent doctor to substantiate negligence rendered continuation of trial an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.718/2020 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sandur are hereby quashed.

Dr. Chandrashekar S/O. Sharanapap Neeralagi Vs Vadeyar… — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100731 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100731 OF 2022 (482)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SHARANAPAP NEERALAGI AGE. 34 YEARS OCC. SURGEON R/O. AT PRESENT BAKSHI PLOT, MANTUR ROAD, MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOTE-587313

¶10

DR. VIVEK S/O SANGAPPA TIRLAPUR AGE. 34 YEARS OCC. PHYSICIAN R/O. AT PRESENT BAKSHI PLOT, MANTUR ROAD, MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOTE-587313

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADV. FOR SRI.M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

K M SOMASHEKAR

¶15

Digitally signed by K MSOMASHEKAR Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2022.11.25 11:53:38 - 0800

¶16

VADEYAR SREEDHAR S/O ROHITH SWAMY AGE. 22 YEARS OCC. JSW EMPLOYEE R/O. DEVALAPURA VILLAGE, TQ. HOSAPETE DIST. BALLARI

¶17

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2, IN CC NO.718/2020, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SANDUR, ARISING OUT OF P.C. NO.79/2019, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 338, 419, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

CRL.P No. 100731 of 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that due to wrong diagnosis and prescription of wrong medicine, the complainant’s leg was amputated. The learned Magistrate after recording sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent for the aforesaid offences in the absence of credible opinion given by another competent Doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioners-accused is not maintainable. He further submits that in the absence of any material to substantiate the allegation that there was negligence on the part of the petitioners-accused in treating the complainant, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is impermissible.

¶26

The respondent complainant though served with the notice has remained absent.

¶27

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶28

learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 100731 of 2022

¶31

Even accepting the allegation made in the complaint on its face value, utmost it would tantamount negligence on the part of the petitioners in treating the complainant and does not constitute commission of the offence as alleged against the petitioners when there is no allegation that the petitionersaccused were not qualified in treating the complainant. The complainant has also not produced the medical opinion of another doctor to substantiate the negligence on the part of the petitioner in treating him.

¶32

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law since the probability of the conviction of the petitioners-accused is remote and bleak.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶35

The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.718/2020 pending

¶36

on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sandur is hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RSH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 100

Dr. Chandrashekar S/O. Sharanapap Neeralagi v. Vadeyar Sreedhar S/O Rohith Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chandrashekar S/O. Sharanapap Neeralagi v. Vadeyar Sreedhar S/O Rohith Swamy

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

Sri. Praveen S. Reddy Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Malikjan S/O Bhaskar Sannakki

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Basavaraj W/O Mallappa Yaragatti

Yallareddeppa S/O Eshwarappa Madnoor Vs the Acb Police by Ballari Police Station Ballari

Shri. Fakkiresh S/O Veerappa Baligar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sachin S/O Shrikant Hosamani Vs the State of Karnataka