VIGNESH Vs. J MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal revision petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2005, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2275 of 2004, by the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul.

(2.) THE respondent herein as complainant has filed a private complaint under Sections 190 & 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the file of the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul, wherein the present revision petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused. It is stated in the complaint that prior to two years the complainant has married the deceased Jayakumar. On 08.07.2004 at about 09.00 P.M. THE said Jayakumar has met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries and subsequently, he has been taken to the Government Hospital, Dindigul. THE first accused has referred the deceased to one Pandiyammal Scan Centre and accordingly, the same has been done. THE first accused has demanded Rs.15,000/- for doing operation. THE second accused has also demanded the same. THE complainant has not been able to meet the demands of the accused 1 & 2 and for the same reason, the accused 1 & 2 have not given treatment to the deceased and due to their failure the deceased had passed away. THErefore, both the accused had committed offences under Sections 304(II) and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also equally contended that the revision petitioner/second accused is also a Government servant and therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted under the said Section of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court), Dindigul, has rightly taken the complaint on file under Sections 304(A) of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 2(D) of the said Act and there is no compelling circumstances nor valid ground to make interference with the impugned order and altogether the present revision case deserves dismissal.