Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2698 (RAJ)

Ajay Singh Chouhan v. V. K. Jain

2008-12-12

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
ORDER:- By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh (Ajmer) (for short the revisional court in Criminal Revision No.23/2003 by which he partly allowed the Revision filed by non-petitioners No.1 and 2 and rejected the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 Smt. Saroj Vijayvargiya but quashed and set aside the order of cognizance dated 30.5.2002 passed against non-petitioner No.1 Dr. V.K. Jain by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh (for short the trial Court in criminal complaint No. 180/2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner complainant submitted a complaint in the trial Court against the accused respondents u/S. 304A IPC to this effect that they are MBBS Doctors. He stated in the complaint that his wife was under their treatment during the pregnancy. Due to negligence of non-petitioners No.1 and 2 his new born baby child died on 14.11.2001. 3. The trial Court after hearing, took cognizance against the non-petitioners No.1 and 2 vide Order dated 30.5.2002. 4. The accused petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 30.5.2002 of cognizance passed by the trial Court, preferred a criminal revision before the revisional Court. 5. The revisional Court after hearing the counsel appearing for the respective parties, partly allowed the criminal revision vide order dated 2.11.2007, quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 30.5.2002 passed against Dr. V.K. Jain (respondent No.1) but at the same1ime maintained the order of trial Court passed against respondent No.2 Dr. Saroj VijayVargiya. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by the revisional court by which it quashed the cognizance order dated 30.5.2002 against the non-petitioner No.1, preferred instant criminal revision before this Court. 7. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material., 8. Mr. Mantri, counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court has not gone through the entire material and wrongly quashed and set aside the order of cognizance dated 30.5.2002 passed by the trial Court against the non-petitioner No.1 and the order of cognizance dated 30.5.2002 has been passed by the trial Court after proper application of mind because in the instant case the non-petitioners No.1 and 2 are liable to medical negligence. The revisional court also failed to consider the fact that Dr. Smt. Kiran Jain w/o Dr. The revisional court also failed to consider the fact that Dr. Smt. Kiran Jain w/o Dr. V.K. Jain, is running her private maternity home and Dr. V.K. Jain wants to give her undue advantage in spite of this fact that he is working in Y.N. Hospital as Government Doctor but the complainant refused the proposal given by Dr. V.K. Jain. Therefore. Dr. V.K. Jain was annoyed and give wrong injection to Smt. Renu which caused death of complainants new born baby. Lastly he submits that in Vedas it is told that "a doctor should live like a hermit, work like a horse" but here in the instant case the non petitioners No.1 and 2 have not acted as per their professional conduct and it is not expected from such doctors to act in such a manner. Thus. the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by the revisional Court by which he quashed the order of cognizance dated 30.5.2002 against the non-petitioner No.1 is perverse and illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. In support of his case Mr. Mantri" has placed reliance upon following Judgments: 1. Dr. Suresh Gupta v Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi & Am.. 2004(3) Crimes 149 :(2004 CriLJ 3870)(SC) 2. Jacob Mathew v: State of Punjab & Am., 2005(3) Crimes 63 :(2005 Cri W 371O)(SC), 10. Mr. B.N. Sandhu. Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Mahendra Goyal, counsel for the non-petitioner No.1 submits that the revisional Court has, rightly quashed the order of cognizance dated 20.5.2002 passed by the trial Court against non-petitioner No.1 and no interference is required to be made in the impugned order passed up to this extent. . 11. Mr. Mahendra Goyal, counsel for nonpetitioner No.1 has placed reliance upon a case of Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anil, passed in Special Leave to Petition (Ct1minal) No.334 7 /2003. 12. In my opinion, the revisional court his .not gone through the entire material available on record and wrongly quashed the order of cognizance dated 30.5.2002 passed by, the trial court against non-petitioner No.1. 13. The judgment cited by counsel for the respondent No.1 Mr. Mahendra Goyal is not at all relevant to the facts of the present case and are entirely different than the judgment cited by Mr. Mahendra Goyal. 14. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 21.1.2007 passed by the Addl. 13. The judgment cited by counsel for the respondent No.1 Mr. Mahendra Goyal is not at all relevant to the facts of the present case and are entirely different than the judgment cited by Mr. Mahendra Goyal. 14. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 21.1.2007 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh (Alwar) is quashed and set aside and the order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the tlial Court by which he took cognizance against the non- petitioners No.1 and 2 is maintained. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in accordance with law. Petition allowed.