ORDER

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2021 Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 651 of 2021 of Keezhvaipur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(i) and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Kerala Health Care Service Persons and Health Care Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012, the petitioners have preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution case in short is as follows:

The defacto complainant is a doctor attached to the Taluk Hospital, Mallappally. On 21.05.2021 at about 1.55 p.m., a patient by name John P John was brought to the hospital in an unconscious stage. Though the duty doctor provided emergency medical care and attention, he died by 2.20 p.m. As per the procedure the duty doctor had intimated the death of the patient to the police. The body was handed over to the family members by 5 p.m after completing the formalities. But the petitioners showered abuses on the duty doctor for giving intimation to the police thereby causing delay in handing over the dead body to the relatives. They also insulted and obstructed her from discharging her official duties and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised a plea of false implication and contended that the death of the patient was due to the absence of timely medical care and attention by the duty doctor. When the relatives of the patient alleged negligence and urged for intimation to the police authorities, the 1st petitioner, who is the Grama Panchayath member of Ward 13, the 2nd petitioner, former Standing Committee Chairperson of Anicad Grama Panchayat and the 3rd petitioner a social worker, intervened to console and pacify them to withdraw from their complaint against the doctor. But after two days the hospital staff had staged a dharna anticipating legal action at the instance of the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, the police has registered the case on the complaint of the defacto complainant. But in fact the petitioners have not committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are absolutely correct. In fact the duty doctor was abused and threatened by these petitioners and they also attempted to deter her from discharging her official duties and she then preferred a complaint before her higher official on the very same day and then lodged the complaint before the police and thus the FIR was registered. The petitioners who are the elected members and social workers, are not supposed to abuse or exhibit unruly behavior towards the duty doctor and staff who attended and provided medical care to the patient when he was brought to the casualty. So, the allegations levelled against them are grave and serious in nature, is the stand of the learned public prosecutor.

5. The defacto complainant, who is impleaded as the 2nd respondent had vehemently opposed the application contending that she was abused by the petitioners in filthy language while on duty and obstructed her from discharging her duties, causing much mental agony just for intimating the death of the patient to the police as per the procedure. The patient was brought in a critical stage with low BP and feeble pulse and he was also unconscious. He was given emergency attention and care including CPR, but she could not save the patient. The patient was brought to the hospital at 01.55.p.m and death occurred at 02.20 p.m. Therefore she had to intimate death to the police as there are certain formalities to be complied with. After the routine formalities, the dead body was handed over to the relatives by 5 p.m. But the petitioners infuriated by her request to wait for the arrival of the police abused and threatened her and even shouted towards her saying she can take the dead body to