PRAFUL B. DESAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition challenging the issue of process in Criminal Case No.296/P of 1991 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State and also heard the original complainant who has appeared before the Court today on his own.

(2.) THE petitioner is a doctor. He was prosecuted by the complainant by lodging a complaint with the police. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the present petitioner and one Dr.Mukherjee for an offence under Section 338 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the issue of process in that criminal case, the petitioner challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.269 of 1995. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application by an order dated 4th November, 1995. Subsequently, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, I do not think that this is a fit case for this Court to interfere at this stage. The matter is still at the stage of issue of process. The allegations in the complaint and the chargesheet show that the complainant's wife Mrs.Leela Singhi was suffering from cancer. She had been taken to U.S.A. for treatment. The doctor in U.S.A. opined that she is not fit for undergoing surgery. It appears, after returning to India, Mrs.Singhi developed bleeding and then she was taken to Bombay hospital for treatment, where according to the complainant, she was admitted as a patient under the petitioner, Then the petitioner is said to have advised surgery. Subsequently, it was noticed that surgery was not possible and this was after preliminary exploratory lapartomy on the advice of the petitioner done by Dr.Mukherjee, who thereafter closed the abdomen of the patient. The patient subsequently suffered very much and then died about few months later. According to the complainant, both the doctors were rash negligent in their treatment of the patient, and therefore, they have committed the offence mentioned above.