SATHY M PILLAI Vs. SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the former Criminal M.C. filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure III private complaint are the accused therein. The said complaint is one filed by the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Attingal complaining of commission by the petitioners of offences punishable under S.120(b), 304 and 201 I.P.C. read with S.34 thereof. The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 in the former Crl.M.C. are the petitioners in the latter Crl.M.C. filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. wherein Annexure II final report and proceedings pursuant thereto are sought to be got quashed. The said Annexure II final report is charge sheeting the petitioners for offences under S.120B, 304A, 465, and 468 I.P.C. read with S.34 thereof. According to them Annexure III private complaint in the former Crl.M.C. and Annexure II final report in the latter Crl.M.C. are liable to be quashed invoking power of this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. those being misuse of the process of Court. The first respondent in the former Crl.M.C. at whose instance the law was set in motion which culminated in Annexure II final report is not a respondent in the latter Crl.M.C.

(2.) The bundle of facts which has led to the complaint and the registration of crime which culminated in the final report sought to be quashed are the same and that can be stated briefly as follows:--

(3.) Chandrakala the deceased in the occurrence involved in the case is the wife of the first respondent in the former Crl.M.C. and it was at his instance the crime which culminated in the final report in the latter Crl.M.C. was registered. She was pregnant and was under care and treatment of the first petitioner to avoid a second abortion as she had already undergone abortion of the first pregnancy. The first petitioner was running a private hospital at Attingal under the name and style "Samad Hospital". The deceased was admitted in the hospital on 25.4.1996 for bed rest and had been advised encirclage operation. Surgical intervention was accordingly performed on 23.5.1996 AN and the patient breathed her last in the forenoon on 24.5.1996. Anaesthesia was being administered to the patient by the second petitioner who is the husband of the first petitioner. It is alleged that he was not a competent Anaesthetist. The third petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 1138 of 2001 is a Gynecologist who was employed in the said hospital at the relevant time. She is not a party in Crl.M.C. No. 3682 of 2001. The 4th petitioners Crl.M.C. No. 1138 of 2001 is the third petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 3682 of 2001 and she was the Nurse who assisted in the surgery. The allegation is that the patient Chandrakala died on account of criminal negligence of the petitioners and that they have further forged documents in relation to the treatment administered to the deceased and have caused disappearance of evidence of offence and have also given false information to screen the offender and have cheated the first respondent/complainant.