Dismissed

Sivakami v. the State Rep by

Madras HC2 Feb 2016CRL OP/1047/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking compulsion on police to register a case for medical negligence. The petitioner's husband died in December 2015, and his body was received and cremated without protest. The complaint was lodged a month later, and the court held no sufficient cause existed to entertain the prayer high post-cremation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer to direct the police to register a criminal case is rejected as the complaint was filed after the body had already been cremated without protest.

Sivakami Vs the State Rep by — Medical Negligence | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.02.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1047 of 2016

¶6

Sivakami ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by its
Inspector of Police,
Nandambakkam Police Station,
Chennai-89. ... Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code praying to direct the respondent-Police to
register a criminal case on the basis of the complaint of the
petitioner dated 07.01.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Shanmugha Velayutham, PP
* * * * *
ORDER
This petition has been filed praying to direct the
respondent-Police to register a case based on the complaint
dated 07.01.2016 given by the petitioner.

¶7

2.It is stated by the petitioner that during the month of November, 2015, the petitioner's husband was admitted in Miot Hospital for treatment and due to medical negligence, her husband died on 03.12.2015. The petitioner's mother-in-law informed the petitioner about the death of her husband and the petitioner's mother-in-law brought the dead body of the petitioner's husband from the hospital. On 07.01.2016, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent-Police to take action against the hospital authorities for causing death to her husband, by negligence. Since the petitioner's complaint was not registered by the respondent-police, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition before this Court.

¶8

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

¶9

3.When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's husband took treatment in Miot Hospital and he died on 03.12.2015. The petitioner received the dead body of her husband and deadbody was also subsequently cremated. After a lapse of one month from the date of the death of her husband, the petitioner has preferred a complaint on 07.01.2016, on the ground of negligence on the part of the hospital authorities. It is further contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since the dead body of the petitioner's husband has already been cremated, at this juncture, the question of registering the petitioner's complaint does not arise.

¶10

4.Heard both sides. I find some force in the submission
made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The
petitioner's husband died on 03.12.2015 and the dead body was
received without any protest and it was subsequently cremated.
Now, after a period of nearly one month from the date of
cremation of the dead body, the petitioner has preferred the
complaint. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer
sought for by the petitioner in this petition.
In fine, the criminal original petition is dismissed.
ssv
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Nandambakkam Police Station,
Chennai-89..
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 c to Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan, Advocate SR 7000
+ 1 cc to Public Prosector, High Court, Madras SR 6762
bvr(co)
prk16/2 Crl.O.P.No.1047 of 2016

¶11

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

Sivakami v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakami v. the State Rep by

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

Shanmugam Vs The Joint Commissioner

G. Murthy Vs a.Anatharaman

Mr.K.Perumal, Vs District Collector

A.Karthikeyan Vs The Sub Registrar

M.Kalai Selvan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Sanne Gowder Vs the Director General of Police