Supreme Court - Daily Orders
P. Joybell vs Christian Medical College & Hospit. on 11 March, 2015
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 469 OF 2012
P. JOYBELL ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE &
HOSPIT. & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The appellant-complainant is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 20443 of 2008, wherein the respondents herein sought for quashing the charge-sheet in case STC No. 224 of 2008, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.
Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out to this Court that pursuant to the earlier order of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P. No. 19634 of 2006, at the instance of the appellant, after considering Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vinod Kumar Date: 2015.03.17 the relevant facts and the grounds urged in the said 14:28:28 IST Reason: petition, the police was not registering a complaint under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 for short 'Cr.P.C.' on the basis of the complaint given by the appellant seeking for a direction to respondent no. 6 to register the complaint and proceed with the investigation in the matter. The High Court after hearing the appellant and the respondents therein including the respondent no. 1 herein and after adverting to the judgment of this Court in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 SCC (Crl.) 1369, directed respondent no. 6 to obtain the independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in Government service qualified in that branch of medical practice, who can give an impartial and unbiased opinion in respect of the alleged medical negligence of the doctors as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Jacob Mathew (supra) and further directed respondent no. 6 that in the event of registering the case, after satisfying that the allegations contained in the complaint constitutes cognizable offence, it shall file the final report as expeditiously as possible and more particularly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order of the Madras High Court. Pursuant to the said order, respondent no. 6 obtained opinion of two doctors and thereafter cognizance was taken and investigation was conducted and a positive report is 3 filed before the learned magistrate in the case referred to supra and also the additional report dated 18.08.2008 was filed. The same was questioned by respondent nos. 1 to 5 before the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing the charge-sheet. The High Court after adverting to the factual and rival legal contentions, the judgment of this Court in the case of Jacob Mathew (supra) and other judgments, findings of fact recorded with reference to the allegations contained in the report and after adverting to the material evidence collected by the investigating officer, held that respondent nos. 1 to 5 have made out a case for quashing of the charge-sheet. The said order is challenged by the appellant in these proceedings urging various legal contentions.
There is no need for this Court to advert to the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties as we are not dealing with any one of the findings and reasons recorded by the courts below as well as on the merits of the case.
However, with reference to the material evidence collected by the investigating officer, we are of the considered view that once a charge-sheet is filed on the basis of the complaint lodged, it is 4 for the trial court to consider the same at the time of framing of charge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. It is a well settled principle of law right from the year 1954 that once a charge-sheet is filed, the aggrieved persons are entitled to show that the charge need not be framed as the material contained in the report is not adequate to frame the charge and to try them for the alleged offence. In view of the said legal position, the High Court ought not have entertained the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it is for the trial court to frame the charge and conduct the trial or discharge the accused persons if, prima facie, there is no material available in the report as well as in the additional report filed by the investigating officer. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court in quashing the charge-sheet is erroneous and illegal. Accordingly, on this ground itself, we are required to set aside the impugned order, which we order.
Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5, placed strong reliance upon the additional report.
In view of the above, we allow this appeal and 5 remand the matter to the trial court to examine the case, frame the charges, hear the parties and decide the case afresh in accordance with law. It is open for respondent nos. 1 to 5 to make their submission on the issue that charge should not be framed against them and their submissions shall be considered in accordance with law and on its own merit.
With the aforesaid observation and direction to the trial court, we allow this appeal.
................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..................J. (C. NAGAPPAN) NEW DELHI, MARCH 11, 2015 6 ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 469/2012 P. JOYBELL Appellant(s) VERSUS CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPIT.& ORS Respondent(s) Date : 11/03/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Appellant(s) Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv.
Ms. Vandana, Adv.
Mr. L. K. Pandey,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. F.R. Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Adv.
Mr. S. Goud, Adv.
Ms. Geethi Hara, Adv.
Ms. Aakanksha Nehra, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(VINOD KR.JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)