SHRIKANT KAUSHIKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has assailed order dated 1 st December 2009 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 6 th August 2009 passed by learned MM was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was working as Orthopedic Surgeon in DDU Hospital at Hari Nagar. At the relevant time i.e. on 13 th September 1998 while petitioner was in casualty, a patient in the name of Asha Ram was brought to casualty and was attended by the petitioner immediately without caring for necessary formalities like MLC, admission card etc. The patient was operated upon and treated in view of the seriousness of the injuries sustained by him. However, the attendant of the patient i.e. respondent no.2 was not satisfied with the treatment and became violent and abusive to the doctors on duty including the petitioner herein. It is stated that respondent no.2 not only continued his violent behaviour and abusive language resulting into disruption of functioning of casualty, he threatened doctors on duty including the petitioner with dire consequences. He also manhandled not only the petitioner but also other employees of DDU Hospital which resulted into minor injuries to the petitioner and the employees. The petitioner, after the incident, reported the matter to Medical Suptd. of DDU Hospital who, after satisfying himself about the facts, lodged a criminal complaint at Police Station Hari Nagar and an FIR 737 of 1998 dated 14 th September 1998 under Section 186,353, 355 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. The respondent no.2 also got an FIR No.733 of 1998 under Section 342/506/323 registered against the petitioner and other doctors. The investigation of the two FIRs was assigned to different investigating officers. While challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C in respect FIR No.733 of 1998 (filed by respondent no.2) was filed in the Court on 6 th January 1999, the challan in respect of FIR No.737 of 1998 (filed by the petitioner) was not filed by the investigating officer for quite long time and it was filed only on 21 st August 2002. Learned MM while taking cognizance found that the offences were punishable maximum for a period of three years punishment and the challan was filed after a period of three years, so the learned MM vide order dated 6 th August 2009 refused to condone the delay of one year in filing the challan observing that the delay was not explained. The only explanation given for condonation of delay by the investigating officer was that he had handed over the challan to the Naib Court in time but the Naib Court did not file it in the court. The trial court considered that this was not a reasonable explanation of delay in filing the challan and refused to condone the delay. In revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the impugned order since the petitioner was only a witness and a witness had no right to assail the order.

(3.) Section 473 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as under: