IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2022

1. Dr. Apurba Dutta @ Dr. Apurba Kumar Dutta @ Apurva Dutta

2. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Saw

.... .. ...

Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Sonu Prasad

.. ... ...

Opp. Party(s)

...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

.........

For the Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

For the State

:

Mr. V. K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2

:

Mr. R. N. Chatterjee, Advocate

…...

04/ 04.01.2023. The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding including the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Complaint Petition No.577 of

2022 whereby and whereunder a prima facie case under Section 315/ 504/ 34 has

been made out and the process was directed to be issued against the petitioners/

accused persons.

2.

The prosecution case in brief is that the sister-in-law of the complainant

was admitted and getting treatment from Dr. Apurba Dutta at Shree Durga Clinic

and Fertility Clinic Centre, Aam Bagan, Bhuli. The date of delivery was stated to

be on 12.01.2022, but on 04.01.2022, the lady had labour pain and she was

admitted in the Nursing Home. At that time, Doctor was not present, but accused

nos.2 and 3 were present. It is alleged that in absence of Doctor, delivery was

conducted in which she gave birth to a baby child. Immediately after the birth, the

child became critically ill and the Doctor informed that the child cannot be treated

in that Clinic. On request by the patient to be referred, demand of Rs.8110/- was

made. It took some time to arrange the fund and when the child was brought for

treatment to Rani Hospital, Ranchi, the condition of the child was beyond the

redemption and child died during infection. It is alleged that Dr. A. Dutta and his

associates misbehaved with the attendants and had also taken Rs.1400/- from the

pocket.

3.

It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 is registered practitioner/ Doctor

whereas petitioner no.2 is compounder.

4.

It is further submitted that during enquiry, three enquiry witnesses were

examined during enquiry and the learned Court found prima facie case to be made

out under Sections 315/ 504/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the entire

criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is under challenge

before this Hon’ble Court.

5.

It is submitted that from bare reading of the complaint petition itself, it will

be evident that the patient was admitted in the Hospital of the petitioner(s)/ Doctor

for delivery of the child which was successfully completed. On 04.01.2022, the

infant child developed infection and thereafter died during course of treatment in

Rani Children Hospital, Ranchi. Even if the allegation as made in the complaint is

accepted no offence will be made out.

6.

The order taking cognizance is a non-speaking order and the materials as

disclosed in the complaint petition and in the statement of the witnesses do not

make out a prima facie case of any negligence on the part of the petitioners.

Petitioner No.1 is the registered medical practitioner and the criminal prosecution

cannot be initiated without any evidence of criminal negligence on the part of the

petitioners/ accused persons. In this regard, reliance has been placed in the

judgment reported in 2005(6) SCC 1.

7.

It is further submitted that the present case is an instance of malicious

prosecution where the criminal law has been set into motion without having

sufficient materials for initiating prosecution. In this regard, reliance has been

placed in the judgment reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein it has been held

that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law

cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to

bring onl