Advocates:
['S THIRUMAVALAVAN-MS', '', 'M KALYANI-MS', 'G VASUTHEVAN-MS', 'M/S R JOHN SATHYAN', '', 'TYPE SET OF CITATIONS FILED', 'A PRAVEEN KUMAR', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

24.01.2022

Pronounced on

.04.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

Crl.R.C.No.1022 of 2016

P.K.Pounraj

... Revision Petitioner /

Defacto complainant

Vs

1.Dr.S.Ranganathan

2.Dr.P.Poonkodi

... Respondents 1 & 2 /Accused

3. The State Rep. By

Inspector of Police,

B-1Police Station,

Dharmapuri .

[Crime No.1017 /2014] ... Respondent/Respondent/complainant

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397

r/w 401 Cr.P.C.,1973, to call for the records in C.C.No.46 of

2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dharmapuri

and set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate

at Dharmapuri in Crl.MP.No.412 of 2015 in C.C.No.46 of 2015

dated 27.04.2016 and thereby direct the Chief Judicial

Magistrate to frame charges as against the accused /Respondents

1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 304(A), 201,

465, 468 and 471 IPC in the above C.C.No.46 of 2015 and dispose

the same in accordance with law.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Thirumavalavan

For Respondents

: Mr.R.John Sathyan for RR1 and 2

: Mr.A.Gopinath

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

for R3

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging

the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 complaint a case was registered by the 3^rd 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 admitted at OM Sakthi

Hospital run by the 2^nd and 3^rd 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 issue. But the 1^st and 2^nd 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 treatment suiting to his symptoms, the 1^st and

2^nd 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 medical negligence. After the completion of

the investigation the 3^rd 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 pe