SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Pat) 463

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
Prabha Sinha wife of Dr. Pranay Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
P.K. Sahi, Advocate, Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Sandip Sahi, Advocate, Vikas Kumar, Advocate, Lalit Kishore, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

The aforesaid batch of cases arise out of the same impugned order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), Patna in Complaint Case No. 3229 (C) of 2016, hence both the cases have been taken up for hearing together, with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. The aforesaid batch of cases have been filed against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No. 3229(C) of 2016, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the aforesaid petitioners under Sections 304, 316/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as per the complaint filed by the complainant namely Prabhat Kumar Singh bearing Complaint Case No. 3229(C) of 2016, pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna dated 06.10.2016 is that the daughter of the complainant was married five years back with one Lokesh Kumar and subsequently she became pregnant whereupon she came under the treatment of Dr. Mrs. Prabha Sinha i.e. the petitioner of the first case (Cr.W.J.C. No. 930 of 2017). The deceased daughter of the compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

BHALACHANDRA WAMAN PATHE VS State Of Maharashtra - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 329: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled). The entry is a standalone principle with no reference to how subsequent cases have treated it.

Jacob Mathew VS State Of Punjab - 2005 5 Supreme 297: No treatment indicators present. The entry lists principles without any language suggesting followed, distinguished, criticized, etc.

Kusum Sharma VS Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre - 2010 1 Supreme 519: No treatment indicators. Contains numbered principles on negligence but no phrases referencing judicial treatment of this specific case.

Martin F. D’Souza VS Mohd. Ishfaq - 2009 2 Supreme 40: No explicit treatment keywords, though it references another case ("Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha") as something that "should not be understood" in a particular way. This suggests clarification or distinction of that other case, but no indication of how this case itself has been treated.

Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole VS State of Maharashtra - 2017 3 Supreme 638: No treatment indicators. Simply states "Distinction between error of judgment and criminal negligence" without any referencing language.

Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla VS State Of Maharashtra - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 339: No treatment indicators. Describes requirements under specific IPC sections without phrases indicating subsequent judicial treatment.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top