PURUSHOTTAMBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application filed under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C, the applicants herein seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court praying quashment of FIR being I. CR. No. 26 of 2017, registered with Palanpur City Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sec. 304(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present application are that, the applicant no. 1 - P.G. Patel is Doctor by profession and running his hospital in the name and style as 'Meeta Hospital' at Palanpur, whereas, applicant no. 2 is also doctor rendering his services as Anesthetic. According to case of the prosecution, the wife of the respondent no. 2 complainant died on 10/5/2016 at the hospital of applicant no. 1, when, she was admitted for necessary surgery as advised by the treating doctor Mr. Naik as well as present applicant No.1. On 10/5/2016, deceased was brought to the hospital of co-accused Dr. Naik as she was pregnant and she delivered a baby girl by normal delivery. However, after the delivery, due to continuous bleeding, the condition of the patient was deteriorated. Mr. Naik called the present applicant Mr. Patel at his hospital for further treatment and upon examination of the patient, he advised for further surgery. Mr. Naik, citing personal reasons, refused to perform surgery at his hospital and requested the present applicant Mr. Patel to perform the surgery at his private hospital. The respondent no. 2 was informed about the situation and accordingly, patient was shifted to Meeta Hospital at Palanpur and before surgery could perform, she expired due to excessive bleeding and other complications. The respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against three doctors. The Investigation Agency sought report from the expert doctor and made a report to the concerned court for addition of Sec. 304(2) of the Indian Penal Code and seeks permission for deletion of Sec. 304(A) of the IPC. The Court concerned allowed the report submitted by I.O. In the aforesaid facts, the applicants herein have been charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

(3.) This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Nandish Thackar appearing for and on behalf of the applicants, Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.B. Rana, learned advocate for respondent no.2.