Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7712
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Harinath, J
Ms. Reddy Syamala, Mr. Meddi Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6859 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sr. V. K. Naidu
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
Charges under Section 304-A IPC were quashed due to lack of evidence linking the petitioners to the negligent act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-A - Criminal charges against hospital employees following an incident resulting in death due to negligence - Petitioners argued absence of direct connection to the incident - Court found charges unsustainable due to lack of evidence linking petitioners to the incident. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court's authority to quash proceedings deemed unsustainable - Stay of proceedings issued against petitioners based on submissions presented. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employees of a hospital, were accused under Section 304-A IPC after an incident involving a lift at the hospital that led to the death of a complainant's father-in-law. The petitioners contended they had no responsibility for the incident.
Findings of Court:
The Court stayed the proceedings against the petitioners, indicating insufficient evidence to sustain the charges against them.
Issues: The primary issue was the alleged negligence of the petitioners in relation to the lift incident and whether charges under Section 304-A were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded no direct responsibility could be attributed to the petitioners regarding the incident, thus quashing the criminal proceedings against them.
Result: Proceedings stayed against the petitioners.
ff Heard the learned cou'ns6l for the petjt[-oners and the learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the state.
The learned counsel for the petf-tjoners submits that tfle PetI'tI-Oners are employees of Medicover Hdspital, and that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint alleging an offence under sectI-On 304-A of the IPC, on the file of MaharanI-Peta Police- station, visakhapatnam city. lt I-S submitted that the police have fI-led a charge sheet, holdI-ng the petI-tI-Oners responsl-ble for the offence under sectI-On 304-A of the IPC. I€ is further subml'tted that the 2nd respondentJs father-in-law sustained an injury after falling into the "ft xp8-t! as the lift door opened without the lift having reached the said floor. on account of the saI-d faH the 2nd respondentJs father-in-law passed away, and the present offence under section 304-A IPC was registef6d.
]t is submitted that the I-neident took place at Medicover HospI-tal, and the employees of the hosblu~{al could not have been raped in as accused wI-thOl.It there being a'ny direct nexus between the petI-tI-OnerS and the I-nCident. lt is also submitted that the petI-tiOners are neI-ther the .-, owners of the hospital nor the 6wners of the lift. In these circumstances;
.i_,I.: \-.-:
}
^:.i-,.4i*, I the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under section 304-A of the lPC are not sustainable.
Considering the submissions, there shall be a stay of all further proceedings, insofar as the bet-iti`oners are concerned, in c.c. No.6451 of 2022 on the file of the II Ad`ditiona] Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take ou€`
personal notice to the 2nd respondent through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry.
Post the matter on 18.08.2025."
