Suman Sarda vs Krishna Devi

V.K. Bali, J.

In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners namely Dr. (Mrs.) Suman Sarda and Dr. Vanit M. Sarda seek quashing of the complaint dated 4.12.1993 (Annexure P1) and the summing order dated 19.3.1994 (Annexure P2).

Brief facts of the case reveal that Krishna Devi filed a complaint on 4.12.1993. After her preliminary evidence was concluded, the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial under sections 500/504/506 IPC.

In the complaint, all that is mentioned is that the complainant continued to serve in the clinic of the petitioners. On 4.12.1991, the petitioners used filthy language and insulted her in the presence of Ram Beer, Smt. Basanti Devi wife of Inderjeet and one Ram Lal. On 7.12.1991, she asked the reasons from the petitioners for the said wrong behaviour of the petitioners on which the petitioners lost their temper and turned her out of the clinic. She filed a suit on 20.12.1991 in the Civil Court. The petitioners, however, called her for a compromise but when she reached the clinic of the petitioners, they again started abusing her. One of the petitioners caught hold the complainant from the neck as a result of which she fell down on the ground and thereafter both the petitioners gave her beatings. They also threatened her that if she tries to approach the police, she will have to face dire consequences. In support of her complaint, she examined herself before the Court as P.W. 1. Her statement has been annexed as Annexure P3.

In this petition filed under section 482, Cr.P.C., the respondent was served but she has not chosen to appear.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Both the petitioners are highly qualified doctors. Whereas Dr. (Mrs.) Suman Sarda is M.B.B.S. (Hons.) and a Child Specialist, the petitioner Dr. Vanit M. Sarda is Professor of Surgery in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. Besides the fact, that the allegations of the respondentcomplainant are very trivial in nature, there are lot of contradictions in the complaint and the statement made by her as P.W. 1. That apart, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if her statement is believed to be true at this stage, no offence under Sections 504/506 will be made out.

The Court, after hearing the learned counsel, is convinced that there are no allegations of criminal intimidation failing under the mischief of Section 504 of the I.P.C. and if there is lack of such allegations in complaint or evidence, provisions of Section 506, I.P.C. also cannot possibly be attracted. On the facts that have been noticed above, the petitioners could, however, be summoned under section 323, I.P.C. but somehow the Magistrate has not chosen to summon the petitioners under that Section and obviously the respondentcomplainant has not chosen to challenge the summoning order on that ground. In a case of this kind, it will not be in the fitness of things that the petitioners, who are highly qualified doctors, are dragged into litigation. The complaint and the summoning order are thus quashed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.