Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2487 (MAD)

N. C. Banumathi v. S. Annamalai

2022-08-03

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (ML), Tiruvannamalai to conclude the trial in C.C.No.70 of 2013 and dispose of the same within a stipulated time.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the learned trial Judge to dispose of C.C.No.70 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (ML), Tiruvannamalai, for the alleged offence under Section 304 (A) I.P.C., for causing medical negligence. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police registered a case in Crime No.685 of 2008 and filed a final report for the offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C. which was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruvannamalai and taken on file in C.C.No.108 of 2010. Subsequently, the same was transferred to Fast Track Court, Tiruvannamalai and numbered as C.C.No.279 of 2011 and after the transfer to the present Court, the same has been numbered as C.C.No.194 of 2019 and is pending before the same Court as on date. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though a final report was filed by the police and taken cognizance, in the above matter trial is already over and it is in the argument stage, whereas, the prosecution instituted by the private complaint is still pending without any progress merely on the ground that A2 and A3 who are the staff nurses at that relevant point of time under the petitioner are absconding. Hence, submitted that there must be a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the C.C.No.70 of 2013 expeditiously. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the earlier order dated 29.01.2016 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.27511 of 2015 to quash the subsequent C.C.No.70 of 2013, which was taken cognizance on the basis of the private complaint. This Court while dismissing the petition filed in Crl.O.P.No.27511 of 2015 had observed in paragraph No.5 as follows; “5. It is settled law that a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence, shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence. It is settled law that a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence, shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence. In the present case, the petitioner / accused has not been tried so far by the Court below and it is admitted fact that both the cases are pending for trial. The only apprehension of the petitioner is that for the same offence, if the petitioner is tried twice, she would be convicted in both the cases, which in my opinion, cannot be sustained. But pending trial in C.C.No.279 of 2011 which arose on filing the charge sheet by the concerned police, does not bar for the learned trial Judge to conduct the trial in respect of C.C.No.70 of 2013 which arose on filing a private complaint by the respondent. In such view of the matter, I feel it appropriate to direct both cases be tried together simultaneously. 5. In view of such direction, now the learned Magistrate has adopted a trial proceedings separately for each case. Now it appears that the trial is almost over in the case instituted by the police, whereas, C.C.No.70 of 2013 which has been taken cognizance on the basis of the private complaint got stuck due to non appearance of A2 and A3, who are the staff nurses under A1 at the time of commission of offence. 6. It is relevant to note that though this Court in its earlier order in Crl.O.P.No.27511 of 2015 dated 29.01.2016 had directed simultaneous trial in both the cases, the provisions contained in Section 210 of Cr.P.C. was not brought to the learned Judge. Section 210(2) of Cr.P.C. makes it very clear that if a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. 7. When the law mandates the manner in which the police report and private complaint have to be dealt with, that has to be strictly adhered to. 7. When the law mandates the manner in which the police report and private complaint have to be dealt with, that has to be strictly adhered to. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is directed to take into consideration of the above mandatory provisions contained in Section 210(2) Cr.P.C, irrespective of the directions passed by this Court in its earlier order in Crl.O.P.No.27511 of 2015 dated 29.01.2016 and dispose of the case as if both the cases were instituted by the police report in the same trial and conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of four (4) months. 8. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.