Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nand Kishore Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 9 January, 2018
Author: G.R. Moolchandani
Bench: G.R. Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3652 / 2013
Nand Kishore Sharma s/o Sh. Ram Kalyan Sharma, age 25 years,
by caste Brahmin, r/o Heerawala, Tehsil and Police Station
Janwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through PP.
2. Smt. Tophali w/o Sh. Parta Ram, by caste Balai, age 60
years, r/o Near Bandha Balaiyo ki Dhani, Sindoli, Police
Station Kolava, Tehsil & District Dausa (Raj.)
3. Siya Ram Sharma s/o Sh. Bhagawan Sahai, by caste
Brahmin, r/o Sindoli, Police Station Kolava, District Dausa
(Raj.)
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chain Singh Rathore. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI Judgment 09/01/2018 Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner Nand Kishore Sharma against the order dt. 25.06.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in FR No. 34/2008 arising out of FIR No. 130/2008 Police Station Kolava, District Dausa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both, respondent No. 2 Smt. Tophali and respondent no. 3 Siya Ram Sharma were not trained for midwifery and they administered wrong injection to the wife of the petitioner Guddi and forcibly (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3652/2013] withheld, wife of the petitioner from attending hospital, where the delivery could have taken place safely without any injury to the spouse of petitioner and begotting baby but both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 acted negligently, which caused a still delivery and uterus of the spouse of petitioner was subjected to grave injury.
In these circumstances, court below has not appreciated the evidence correctly and has wrongly dismissed the protest petition of the petitioner and has further prayed for allowing the present petition after setting aside the order impugned.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the Investigating Agency has conducted a fair investigation and filing of Final Report is a correct conclusion, so learned trial court has acted legally in disallowing the protest petition and accepting the Final Report.
During the course of the arguments, it has candidly averred by learned counsel for the petitioner that two of the deliveries of the spouse of present petitioner, were caesarean and had taken place in the hospital.
Order impugned also reveals that wife of the petitioner was got admitted in the Women Hospital, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur on 12.06.2008, where the wife of petitioner was operated and delivered a still child, nothing is there in the nature of a professional opinion to suggest that Smt. Guddi was attended by respondents Midwife and Compounder and was treated negligently.
It is common knowledge that at the time of delivery, services of proficient medical professional are required and ought (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3652/2013] to be taken and expectant mother should always be admitted in a hospital for the delivery. Government has also floated Schemes to facilitate Hospital Deliveries with incentives.
Petitioner has admittedly got his two children delivered by caesarean procedures through proficient medical professionals.
In view of afore-discussed fact scenario, there appears no infirmity in the order impugned.
For the reasons deliberated, the present petition lacks merit, hence dismissed.
(G.R. MOOLCHANDANI) J.
Ashu/16