Dismissed

Dr. Pulipaka Rajesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024CRLP/2350/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2350 of 2019, the Telangana High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the impugned order requires adjudication upon a full-fledged trial and is not a fit case for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Pulipaka Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY oF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIONN O: 2350 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr Pulipaka Rajes-lr, S/o -Lingaiah Age 32 years, Occ Doctor, R/o. H.No. 19_7_ r zd, ASnoKnagar. Uodavarikhani. peddapalli Districct

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1

¶10

AND

¶11

1 TJre.State of relangana, through Station House officer, p.s., Godavarikhani-l (.t),.Kanmnagar District, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court df Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶12

....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

Flag,n,]r'^{Kiran S/o RayamattLLAge32 years, Occ DrivJr. Rio. H.No.1-i63,} sun0rlta ot Kamanpur Mandal, peddapalli District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal peiition, the High court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in c c.No.37112016 on tirJ fite or t noor. Judicial Magistriate of First class at Godavarikhani (which arises out of cr.No. 386 ol 2015 on the file of P.s, Godavarikhani-l rown, Karimnagar District) against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in the interest of Justice.

¶16

l.A. NO:2 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interlm stay granted earlier in crl.p.No. 23510 of 2019 d;ted 0410612019 till the disposal of the quash petition in the interest of justice.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all the further proceedings including appeareance of the petitioner/accused No 1 in C.C.No 37112016 on the file of I Addl. Judicial lvlagistriate of First Class at Godavarikhani (which arrses out of Cr.No. 386 of 20 15 on the file of P.S, Godavarikhani-1 Town, Karimnagar District)^pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S, Surender Recldy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

)

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITIo^{N No.235O OF 2019}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present Criminal^{Petitionis filed seeking to quashthe} proceedings dated 29.06-2016^{in C.C.No'371of 2016 on the lile} of the learned I Additional^{Judicial Magistrateof First class at} Godavarikhani^{(for short, "the trial Court") (which arises out of} Cr,No.386 of 2015 on the^{file of P'S' Godavikhani-ITown'} Karimnagar District).

¶27

Heard learned counsel^{for thepetitioner and} Ms.S.Madhavi,^{learnedAssistant PublicProsecutor appearingfor} respondent No.l^{S tate.}

¶28

Brief facts of the^{case are that on O7'10'2015the defacto} complainant lodged^{a complaint alleging that on O5'10'2015he} admitted his wife in^{Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani} for hernia operation^{where the accused No' 1 and otherstaff} members demanded^{tl"e complainant to pay Rs'2O,OOO/- in order} to conduct^{operation and threatened that if he failedto do so' the} consequences^{will be changed. However,the defacto complainant} agreed to^{pay Rs.3,OOO/-and gave Rs'2,000/-'The accused No'1} -. did not^agree for^{the same and negligentlyconducted the}

¶29

¶30

operation, due to which the wife of the^{deceased died while} undergoing treiltment.

¶31

Basing oir the complaint lodged by defacto complainant, LWlS/Sub Inspector of Police, PS, Godavarikhani registered^a case in Crime No.386 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-4. of Indian Pena-l Code (for short "IPC") and took up the investigation. truring the course of investigation, LW15 visited the scene of offence i.e., Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, examined and^.ecorded the statements of material witnesses and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and drawn the rough sketch of the scene in presence of mediators and subjected the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. After conducting a detailed enquiry, on 29.06.2016 LW15 served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. upon the accused No.l informing him to appear before' the Court whenever his presence is required and laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ accused No.l filed the presel.t petition seeking quash of C.C.No.37 1 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additiona,l Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhanr.

I I

I-earned counsel for the^{petitioner vehementlyargued that} there are no specific^{allegationsthat the petitioner/accusedNo'1} has demanded the amount. He^{further submits that as per the} PME report, the doctor who^{conducted autopsy over the dead} body of the deceased opined^{that cause of death is due to} disseminated intravascular^{coagulation, hemorrhage and shock} and the unexpected complication^{during blood transfusionmay} happen within⁽⁴⁸⁾ hours^{or within a week after the surgeryald} as the bleeding term is normal^{before surgeryand in view of the} above sudden complication,^{there is no fault bythe} petitioner/accused No.1. Learned^{counsel would further submit} that the case is^{pending before the trial Court ald since the} Court is insisting for the^{appearailce of the petitioner/ accused} No. 1 for each arld every^{adjournment, causinghardshipto the} petitioner in attending the court.^{Learned counsel wouldfurther} submit that the^{allegations mentionedin FIR and charge sheetdo} not constitute the^{offence asalleged against the} petitioner/accused No.^{1. Hence,seeks to allow the petition'}

¶38

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner/accusedNo' 1 reliedon} judgment between A.P.State Road Transport^{Corporation and}

¶39

¶40

Others os Abdul Kdteemt^{whereinit was observed that a private} complaint may not be entertained^{unless the complainant has} produced pima facie evidence^{before the court in the form of a} credible opinion given by another^{competent doctor to support} the act of rashness or negligence on^{the part of the accused} doctor. The investigating^{officer should, before proceedingagainst} the doctor accused of rash^{or negligent act or omission,obtain an} independent and competent medical^{opinion preferablefrom a} doctor in Government service,^{qualified in that branch of medical} practice who can normally be expected to^give al^{impartial and} unbiased opinion applying the Bolam^{us -Fiern Hospital} Management^()ommitteez test to the facts^{collected inthe} investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or^{negligence, may} not be arrested in a routine marrner^{(simply becausea charge has} been leveled against him).

¶41

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that^the matter requires adjudication in length and only^{upon conducting} a full-fledged trial, the real truth would be elicited.^Therefore, submits that this is not a fit case to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶42

' 12005;6^{Sup.eme Court Cases36}

¶43

'1rosz1^{r wLnsaz}

¶44

)

¶45

Having regard to the submissions^made by^learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, I^{do not find aly reasonto interfere} with the cogntza:itce taken against the^{petitioner/accusedNo- 1 in} C.C.No.371 of 2016 by the trial Court.^{Therefore,this Courtis} not inclined to entertain the^{present Revision, as the same is} devoid of merits. The trial Court shall^{examineall the witnesses} and shall proceed further in^{accordance with law by conducting} the trial in free and fair^marrner.

¶46

Accordingly, this Criminal^{Petition is dismissed.}

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any, shall stand closed'}

¶48

Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavari Khani.

¶53

2 The Station House Officer, Godavarikhani Pdlice Station,^Karimnagar

¶54

.) Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor^(TG) Hyderabad [OUT]

¶55

One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] E Two CD Copies

SIl.'gh 1*

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912024

.r'i IHE sta
a
)) 19 rEB.206 a
'-,
"*
l't tl
SPn Tat Ir:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

CRLP.No.2350 of 2019

¶63

DISMISSING I'HE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶64

I arde\W(dn,:

Dr. Pulipaka Rajesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Pulipaka Rajesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumanth Reddy Vs Chathurdevi

M.Lakshmi Vs M/s Innova Hospitala Pvt. Ltd.

J.S.R. Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Amarnath Devaki Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Amarnath Devaki Vs The State of Telangna, And Another

Mohd. Rafeeq Vs Ayesha Begum