DEEPAK AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision is directed against the order dated 1-12-2005 passed in criminal revision No. 217 of. 2005 by district and Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix is as under :-An application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was moved by opposite party No. 2 alleging therein that on 5-6-2000, the husband of the opposite party No. 2, namely, prakash Chandra Raheja was admitted at sheikhar Nursing Hospital, Lucknow. Dr. A. K. Sachan was the Managing Director of the hospital and Dr. Deepak Agarwal was the main surgeon-cum-architect of the Hospital. On 6-6-2000 various investigation was conducted at the Hospital and on the advice of the doctor E. R. C. P. of late Prakash chandra Raheja was done. He developed pain immediately during post operative period. The pain did not subside from 6-6-2000 onwards and he went in coma on 8-6-2000 with persistence of tachycardia and tachyponea. The condition of Sri Raheja deteriorated to the extent of his having developed respiratory problem from 8th afternoon and fever since 9th June, 2000. Sri raheja was referred and shifted to S. G. P. G. I. Lucknow on 10-6-2000 as a case of post e. R. C. P. Pancreatitis + A. R. D. S. + Septicaemia. He remained under the treatment of dr. S. S. Sikora and Dr. V. K. Kapoor at s. G. P. G. I. and Sri Raheja ultimately expired on 5-7-2000 due to cardio-respiratory. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate directed the police to register a case against the revisionist and Dr. A. K. Sachan vide order 30-1-2004, in pursuance of which a case at crime No. 87/04 under Section 304-A I. P. C. was registered at P. S. Ghazipur, Lucknow. Consequently, the police investigated the case and found no evidence against the revisionist and filed final report on 2-6-2004, which was accepted by the Special CJM (Custom), Lucknow.

(3.) THEREAFTER opposite party No. 2 filed a protest application before the learned magistrate, which too was rejected and final report dated 2-6-2004 was accepted. Feeling aggrieved, opposite party No. 2 filed a criminal revision against acceptance of final report and rejection of protest application, before the District and Sessions Judge, lucknow, who allowed the revision vide impugned order dated 1-12-2005 directing the learned Magistrate to direct the investigating officer to further investigate or to treat the protest petition as a complaint and direct the opp. party to produce the evidence to show gross negligence and recklessness on the part of the doctor.