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 :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
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.
2. Petitioner No.2 was a pharmacist whereas petitioner No.2 worked as a nurse in the clinic in question, against whom, with the allegation of negligence, a report was lodged leading to the registration of Purighat P.S. Case No.49(3) of 2014 under the alleged offence. On completion of investigation, the petitioners were chargesheeted whereupon the learned court below took cognizance of the offence under Annexure-2.
3. Heard Mr. Pal, learned coun
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
