SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 52529

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dr. Deepak Shukla – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 38791/2018



Advocates:
Prakash Upadhyay,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE

19th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38791 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

DR. DEEPAK SHUKLA, S/O SHRI STYA PRAKASH SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DENTIST, R/O GODHAR, P.S. CHURHATA, DISTT. REWA, PRESENTLY R/O KYOTI ROAD, BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI PRAKASH UPADHYAY- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH POLICE STATION BAIKUNTHPUR, REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. SHYAMKALI, W/O SHRI VISHNU PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 331/A/5/3, SCHEME NO. 78, ARANYA NAGAR, POLICE STATION LASUDIA, INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of Criminal Case 74/2017 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirmour, District Rewa for offence under Sections 336 and 338 of IPC.

2. It is the case of applicant that he is a Dentist by profession having his registration under Dentist Act with M.P. State Dentist Council. His Registration Number is A4952, dated 19.10.2013. The applicant is running a Dental Clinic, after complying with all legal formalities in the name and style Shukla Dental Clinic, Kyonti Road, Bekunthpur. The complainant who is the residence of Indore used visit to her relatives at Baikunthpur, District Rewa. On 7.1.2015, she had a severe pain in her lower jaw line and, therefore, took the services of the clinic of the applicant at about 12:30 PM. The applicant examined her and after examination wrote certain prescriptions including an injection which was purchased by the complainant from the open market. As per the allegation, the applicant administered the said injection because of which she had severe pain. The complainant once again consulted the applicant, who gave an opinion that she should not worry and take rest at home. It is alleged that at about 03:00 PM, her pain became unbearable, accordingly, second injection was given which did not yield desire result. The complainant was referred to Dr. Siddhiqui, who examined her and gave two injections which ultimately gave her some relief and she got the rest. In the morning of 8/1/2015, she noticed disfiguration of her finger and she rushed to Dr. Anand Singh at Rewa who referred her to Government Hospital, Rewa where she was again given injection but she did not get the desired result. She was referred to Jabalpur/Banaras/Indore. On 09.01.2015 at about 04:00 PM, she consulted the doctor at Bombay Hospital at Indore. C.T. Scan of the complainant was done and after that amputation of her hand was suggested. Since she was not having financial support for continuing treatment, therefore, she continued to take medicine. Thereafter, there was some improvement in the movement of her hand and ultimately she was operated on 21.01.2015 which has improved her blood circulation. Accordingly, it was alleged that since the applicant had given a wrong injection, therefore, not only she suffered severe pain but a situation had come where amputation of her hand was also suggested. She has already spent approximately Rs.2,00,000/- and her medical treatment is still going on. Accordingly, it was prayed that the applicant be punished and a compensation may be paid to her. It is submitted that accordingly, Crime No. 74/2015 was registered and charge-sheet has been filed.

3. Challenging the FIR and criminal prosecution, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that without any opinion by the committee, the prosecution of the applicant is bad.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the prosecution of the applicant is bad or no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top