AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar, J.—In these applications petitioners challenged the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R. case no. 2932/98, whereby he took cognizance of the offences under sections 419/420/338/307/34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that informant developed abdomen pain on 16.5.98. Thereafter she was brought to the house of Dr. Bhola Prasad. It is further alleged that Dr. Bhola Prasad called Dr. M.N. Singh and said Dr.M.N. Singh performed surgical operation on the abdomen of informant. It is further alleged that after the operation, informant developed some more complications. Thereafter, she has been treated at H.E.C. Plant Hospital, Ranchi where she was again operated by Dr. Basant Kujur. During the said operation a piece of cloth was found in her abdominal cavity, which was the reason of further complication. Accordingly, present case has been filed.
Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even allegations are taken to be true, no offences, u/s 419/420/307 of the I.P.C. are made out, because there is no allegation that petitioners induced and/or made false promise to the informant in lieu of transfer of any valuable property. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that petitioners attempted to commit murder of informant.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case.
From perusal of F.I.R., I find that there is no allegation of false promise and/or inducement to the informant for transfer of any valuable articles and/or for any monetary gain. Under the said circumstance, I find substance in the submissions made by Sri Das that no offence under sections 419 and 420 of the I.P.C. are made out. Likewise, there is no allegation in the F.I.R. or in the case diary that petitioners assaulted and/or cause any injury to the informant with intention to commit her murder. Thus, offence u/s 307 is also not made out. However, from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that offence u/s 338 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners, because from the abdomen of informant a piece of cloth recovered. It prima facie appears that petitioners did not perform professional duty with all care and caution. Under said circumstance, I partly allow these applications and quash the order passed by the court below so far it relates to taking cognizance of the offences under sections 419/420/307 of the I.P.C. However, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance of the court below so far it relates to taking cognizance of the offence u/s 338 of the I.P.C.