AJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a doctor. He is M.S. in Orthopedics and doing practice since 1985.

(3.) It has been submitted that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged after 21 days of the incident by opposite party No. 3 alleging false allegations against the applicant that he has been negligent in giving treatment to the victim who subsequently died. It is admitted case of the prosecution that no post mortem of the deceased was conducted as is also evident from the protest application filed by opposite party No. 3. The learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order has held that no doubt that post mortem of the deceased was not conducted but prima facie cognizable offence is made out against opposite party for which he was summoned for facing trial under Section 304-A I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that when the cause of death of deceased could not ascertained then the trial of the applicant under Section 304-A I.P.C. is wholly unwarranted hence the proceedings against the applicant should be quashed. He further submits that as opposite party No. 3 is a practicing lawyer in the district Court Bijnor for harassing the applicant and for ulterior motive has initiated the present proceedings against him. He urged the lower Revisional Court without their being legal evidence on record has illegally rejected the revision of the applicant and confirmed the summoning order.