RAVI VISHNU PRASAD Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate dated February 8, 2008 whereby charge under Section 120-B read with Section 468 IPC was ordered to be framed against him. As per the allegations made by complainant Brahm Singh, Dr. R. K. Khullar, a Cardiologist in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital performed angiography on him on December 8, 2004 and on the dictation of Dr. R. K. Khullar, a report was written by the present petitioner who was a Senior Resident Doctor, showing 75% blockage in the two arteries of Brahm Singh.

(2.) THE CBI on investigation alleged that Dr. R. K. Khullar was in the habit of giving exaggerated report about the blockages in the arteries of his patients without looking at the angiography films and used to perform angioplasty and stunting even though the same were not required. After the filing of the charge-sheet against Dr. Khullar, the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed further investigation into the role of the present petitioner. The CBI carried out further investigation but found nothing incriminating against the petitioner. According to the CBI, the role of the petitioner was like that of a Stenographer taking dictation from his superior officer. The petitioner never examined the complainant, nor did he see the film. He merely prepared the report on the dictation of Dr. R. K. Khullar. Inspite of the said report by the CBI, the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate directed framing of charge against the petitioner. I have gone through the order passed by the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate on the point of charge. Having regard to the fact that the charge-sheet with regard to the role of the petitioner merely states that he was working under Dr. R. K. Khullar on that particular day being a Senior Resident Doctor and he merely carried out the instructions of Dr. R. K. Khullar by writing what he was asked to write, I am of the view that no case is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the CBI in consonance with investigation carried out against the petitioner has again reiterated that nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner.

(3.) IN the above view of the matter, the order directing framing of charge against the petitioner is quashed. The proceedings against Dr. R. K. Khullar shall continue.