Dismissed

R.Subramani v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Jun 2015CRL OP/13655/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the police to register a case and conduct an enquiry following Supreme Court guidelines in Jacob Mathew regarding allegations of medical negligence causing deformities to the petitioner's daughter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Police to register the case and conduct an enquiry expeditiously following Supreme Court guidelines in Jacob Mathew.

R.Subramani Vs the Inspector of Police — Medical Negligence | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.13655 of 2015

¶6

R.Subramani ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sathangadu Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondent

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent Police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 18.05.2015 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to direct the respondent Police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 18.05.2015 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

¶11

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶12

It is seen that on the complaint given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry is pending in CSR.No.301 of 2015. The allegation is essentially against a doctor who had given treatment to the petitioner's daughter, which had resulted in serious deformities to the petitioner's daughter. The Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab, has issued guidelines for registering FIR. Hence the respondent Police is directed to conduct enquiry expeditiously, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab (2005(6) SCC 1) and take action in accordance with law.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Sathangadu Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 CC to Mr.E.Kannadasan, Advocate SR.No. 27045
Crl.OP No.13655 of 2015
MP (CO)
PSI (18.06.2015)

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Subramani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Subramani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Pandurangan Vs State by

Vinay Jain Vs the Inspector

Sathiyaraj, 35 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

Venkatesan Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Naresh Kumar Vs the State Rep. by

Dhanalakshmi Vs