Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Saroj Kumar Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners charged for alleged negligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments about the validity of charges laid. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. importance of evidence in proving negligence. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. standards for establishing medical negligence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's order to quash proceedings. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 27th April, 2015 (Annexure-2) passed in G.R. Case No.622 of 2014 by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack corresponding to Purighat P.S. Case No.49(3) dated 6th April, 2014 registered under Section 304(A) read with 34 IPC on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law.
3. Heard Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State-opposite party.
5. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of cognizance under Annexure-2 is erroneous, illegal and based on no material and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that even considering the facts alleged in the FIR at its face value and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 16
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
