RUJARITA DCOSTA Vs. POLICE INSPECTOR, AGACAIM POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involve common issues of fact and law; hence, they shall stand disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Mr. Ajit Gaonkar, respondent no.3 in both these writ petitions (hereafter "the complainant", for short) lodged a complaint with the Agacaim Police Station against several doctors and nurses attached to the Paediatric department of Goa Medical College. It was alleged therein that because of the negligence of such doctors and nurses in treating the complainant's new born child or for that matter failure to offer proper treatment immediately after birth, the child's right forearm which developed gangrene had to be amputated. Investigations of the complaint, which was registered as FIR No.19/2012 under Sec. 336 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter "the I.P.C.", for short) and sec. 8(2)(m)(ii) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (hereafter "the 2003 Act", for short), culminated in submission of a police report under sec. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter "the Cr. P.C.", for short) before the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji bearing Chargesheet No.16/2017 dtd. 24/6/2017 under the aforesaid provisions of the I.P.C. and the 2003 Act. The petitioners in these two writ petitions figured in such charge-sheet as accused nos. 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15. By an order dtd. 29/1/2020 passed in Special Case No.120/2017 (State v/s. Dr. Varun Vijay Kumar and Ors.), the President of the Children's Court discharged all the 14 accused persons under sec. 227 of the Cr. P.C. for the offence punishable under sec. 8(2) of the 2003 Act. Since the Children's Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the offences under Sec. 336 and 337 of the I.P.C., the matter was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji B Court. Close on the heels of such order of discharge, a coordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us (M. S. Sonak,J) was a member, had occasion to consider Criminal Writ Petition No.160/2018. Such writ petition was at the instance of accused no.3 in the aforesaid charge-sheet, i.e., Ms. Annely D'Lima. For the detailed reasons assigned in the judgment and order dtd. 27/2/2020, the coordinate Bench quashed the charge-sheet qua the petitioner (Annely D'Lima). The broad reasons for such interference, which can be discerned from such judgment and order, are threefold:

(3.) Such judgment and order came to be delivered by the coordinate Bench upon dealing with the multiple objections that were raised on behalf of the complainant by Mr. Ashwin Bhobe, learned advocate.