SUSHILA PANT Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Government Servant and was posted as Lady Medical Officer in the Hospital where the informant's sister was admitted for delivery case. It is alleged that after she gave birth to a mala child excessive blood flowed and she was yet made to go walking to the operation theatre for some proposed treatment or operation Inspite of the repeated complaints by the informant no steps were taken by the lady doctor (petitioner Smt. Sushila Pant). It was alleged in the end of the FIR that a sum of Rs. 500/- was demanded from the informant for treatment on these facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither a case under section 304-A, IPC is made out, nor provision of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be attracted in this case.

(2.) SUFFICE it to say for the time being that the allegations made in FIR prima facie indicate making out the offences. Therefore, at the stage of examining the allegations in the FIR the truth or otherwise of the allegations made therein shall not be examined by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (See the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, 1982 AIR SC 949. case of State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharama 1991 AIR SC 1260, and case of State of Haryana v, Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR SC 604. Therefore, this is not a fit case for quashing the FIR or the investigation therein in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE application for amendment moved today in the present writ petition is allowed. THE prayer made in the writ petition are rejected. THE only question, whether the petitioner's bail application can be directed to be considered on the same day it is moved, has only to be decided now.