O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri dated 27.04.2016 made in Crl.MP.No.412 of 2015 in C.C.No.46/2015.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant, on whose rd complaint a case was registered by the 3 respondent police in Cr.No.1017/2014 of B1 Police Station, Dharmapuri under Sec.304(A), 201, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The defacto complainant is the father in law of one deceased Vijay @ Venkatraman. On 18.08.2014 Vijay @ Venkatraman was nd rd admitted at OM Sakthi Hospital run by the 2 and 3 respondents. Immediately after admitting the deceased at OM Sakthi Hospital, ECG was taken. Since the condition of the deceased was not improving and he continued to be suffocating and sweating excessively even while he was in the air conditioned room, his care takers were suspected of some cardiac st nd issue. But the 1 and 2 respondents had continued to give assurance to the care takers that the deceased had only gastric problem due to digestive disorder.

2.1. Despite it was suggested to think in term of shifting him to a better Centre for getting further medical investigation and get the right st nd treatment suiting to his symptoms, the 1 and 2 respondents ignored their anxiety and continued to keep the deceased in their hospital. On the morning of 19.08.2014 only the deceased was shifted to Intensive Care Unit and thereafter cardiac specialists were summoned. Even before the cardiac specialists arrived the patient died due to cardiac arrest.

3. On these allegations, a complaint was given by the defacto complainant for taking action against the respondents doctors 1 and 2 for rd medical negligence. After the completion of the investigation the 3 respondent police filed a Final report against the respondents 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sec.304 (A), 201, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. After the case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Dharmapuri, in CC.No.24/2015, it was transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and got renumbered as CC.No.46/2015. The respondents1 and 2 were also summoned to be present.

4. However, the respondents 1 and 2 had filed a petition for quashing the proceedings in Crl.OP.No.10008/2015 before this Court on 17.03.2015. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.04.2015 even at the admission stage itself. Later a petition was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 before the trial Court to discharge R1 and R2 vide Crl.MP.No.412/2015 in C.C.No.46/2015. The defacto complainant has also filed an intervening petition in Crl.MP.No.221/2016, seeking permission to file counter. Accordingly the defacto complainant was also permitted to file his counter and make his appearance through counsel. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the Crl.MP.No.412/2015 on 20.07.2016 and discharged the respondents 1 and 2. Aggrieved over the same the defacto complainant has preferred this Revision Case.

5. Heard, Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Jhon Sathyan, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

3rd respondent/State.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate had allowed the petition to discharge the respondents 1and 2 by not properly appreciating the prima facie materials available in this case; the delay in giving the complaint was exaggerated, despite the delay alone cannot be the reason to discharge the accused; the learned Magistrate had made a roving enquiry with regard to the materials produced by the prosecution even at the initial stage itself; at the stage of framing charges against the accused it is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to see the prima facie materials against the accused to make out a case; in fact as per the latest guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court a report from the higher Med