Charges must be framed only after considering all evidence, including supplementary reports, to ensure fair trial rights of the accused.

ORDER :

1. All these revision petitions arise out of the same order, hence, same are being decided together by this common order.

2. These criminal revision petitions have been preferred by the accused-petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (for short, the ‘learned trial Court’) in Session Case No. 17/2022, State Vs. Shivshankar @ Balya & Ors., whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the accused petitioners under section 227 CrPC and charges were framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 384/149, 388/149, 306/149 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Rajasthan Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property)Act, 2008 (hereinafter is referred to as 'Act of 2008').

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information furnished by Dr. Sunit Upadhyay, an F.I.R. No.157/2022 dated 29.03.2022 was registered at Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 384 & 388 of IPC. It is alleged in the F.I.R. by the informant Dr. Suneet Upadhyay that at around 11.30 A.M., his wife Dr. Archana Sharma committed suicide by hanging at his house and a day prior, due to death of a patient in the Anand Hospital, some people by doing politics on the death of the patient, organized a protest at Anand Hospital and pressurized the administration to lodge an F.I.R. of murder and in this incident the main role was of Shiv Shankar @ Balya Joshi, who earlier also threatened them, for which an F.I.R. was also lodged against him but due to inaction, the same encouraged him. It was further stated by Dr. Suneet Upadhyay that Shiv Shankar @ Balya Joshi was indulged in protest; he abused his father and the same was not bearable by his wife, who was the best Surgeon but she was worried that Shiv Shankar would send her to jail, whereas she was having no fault and she also said that if the patient died without fault of doctor then what a doctor can do and in the morning the newspaper namely; 'Rajasthan Patrika' did not publish her version and even the media persons were also pressurizing in such matter just for their commission. It is further alleged that the family folks of the patient was completely satisfied and took the deceased to the house and when the preparation for funeral was going on then Balya Joshi brought the body at hospital and gathered the crowd, as he wanted to lodge the F.I.R. of murder. They also lodged the report earlier against Balya Joshi and Reporter Mahesh but no action was taken against them and such kind of people make the life of the doctors hell and prayed to register the case of murder.

4. After investigation, the Police submitted the charge- sheet against the accused petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 306, 384 & 388 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 2008.

5. The Investigating Agency while submitting the charge-sheet against the accused namely; Shivshankar Sharma @ Balya, Joshi, Balram Bairwa, Ram Manohar Bairwa, Babulal Meena, Harkesh Shahpura, Ramkhiladi Bairwa, Jitendra Kumar Gothwal, Harkesh Matlana, Laluram Bairwa, Bhom Singh Bairwa kept the pending the investigation under the provisions of section 173(8) CrPC so as to collect the evidence in the matter.

6. After taking cognizance, the learned trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 framed the charges against the accused petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 384/149, 388/149 and 306/149 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 2008, to which, they denied and opted for trial.

7. Even after framing of the charges, the Investigating Agency continued the investigation in view of the provisions of section 173(8) CrPC. The Investigating Agency thereafter on collecting certain additional evidence, submitted the supplementary conclusion report