Madras High Court
Mrs.Balkish Ariba Beevi vs State Represented By on 18 April, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 18.04.2012
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
Crl.R.C.SR.No.5574 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
Mrs.Balkish Ariba Beevi, .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by,
Inspector of Police,
H3 Police Station,
Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081.
2. Mrs.Manjula .. Respondents
Prayer :- Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioner to implead Doctor Pugalendi as the second respondent in the present revision and to accept the cause title of the main revision and to condone the delay of 558 days in preferring the above Criminal Revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mohamed
For Respondent : Mr.C.Balasubramanian
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R-1
No appearance for R-2
- - -
ORDER
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The revision petitioner / third party viz., Mrs.Balkish Ariba Beevi, had stated in her affidavit that her daughter Mrs.Bathuriya Begum got married to one Y.Eshak on 03.03.1996 at Chennai. Out of wedlock, two sons were born on 11.02.1999 and 24.06.2002 respectively. On 14.11.2005, her son-in-law had developed digestion problem and he had been taken to the lab, Tondiarpet, where he was wrongly administered 56 injections within a short span of 20 minutes, as a result of which he had expired due to overdose on the very same day. Because of the unnatural death, her daughter, i.e., wife of the deceased due to vexation had expired. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition in O.P.No.349 of 2008 for appointment of natural guardian of the minor sons.
2. The prosecution had registered a case and the same was proceeded with before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.3514 of 2006, against the second respondent herein viz., Mrs.Manjula. The said case was tried on merits and consequently dismissed since the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond doubt. Thereafter, the above revision in Crl.R.C.SR.No.5574 of 2012, along with M.P.No.1 of 2012, to implead one Doctor, Pugalendi, as necessary party was filed along with condonation delay petition to condone the delay of 558 days.
3. Today, the case came up before this Court for admission. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had produced 14 documents and also judgments of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the deceased was taken to Kut Lab, Tondiarpet to undergo a few laboratory tests viz., urine, motion and blood test. At that time, the second respondent herein viz., Mrs.Manjula had administered 57 injections within a short span of 20 minutes as a result of which, the revision petitioner's son-in-law viz., Eshak expired on the very same day i.e., 14.11.2005. The learned counsel further submitted that one Dr.Pugalendi is a necessary party in the said criminal case. The first respondent, viz., Inspector of Police attached to H3 Police Station, Tondiarpet Police Station had omitted to include the name of the said doctor as co-accused and had proceeded with the prosecution case. As such, the prosecution had not acted in an effective manner. Therefore, the revision petitioner being mother-in-law of the deceased has come forward to conduct the case further. The learned counsel further submitted that she is the competent person to conduct the case as her daughter had also expired.
4. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the prosecution had registered a case and subsequently conducted investigation and had then filed a charge sheet before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court. The case was registered as C.C.No.3514 of 2006, for offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. The prosecution had produced 7 witnesses and listed five documents to establish the prosecution case against the second respondent herein viz., Mrs.Manjula. The learned counsel for the State further submits that there is negligence and insufficient service and also dereliction of duty on the side of the lab. Therefore, the revision petitioner has to seek her remedy before the appropriate forum.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / third party submitted that the occurrence took place on 14.11.2005. The criminal case was registered and proceeded with as C.C.No.3514 of 2006, on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Already, about 7 years have lapsed. Therefore, the third party herein cannot proceed her case before any other appropriate forum since it is barred by limitation. Therefore, the learned counsel prays before this Court to move the case before the appropriate forum for proper legal remedy to the aggrieved persons since the third party is an innocent and an illiterate Muslim lady, who is a minority in religion and also suffering to maintain the two grand children.
6.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the above revision is not maintainable since the case in C.C.No.3514 of 2006 has been disposed of on 26.04.2010 on merits. This Court opines that the present revision has been preferred as an afterthought to include said Dr.Pugalendi as a co-accused. This ground cannot be raised at this stage since the respondent police had duly conducted investigation and submitted final report.
7. However, the aggrieved person / third party, viz., Mrs.Balkish Ariba Beevi is at liberty to move the appropriate forum for her relief. However, this Court grants special relief to the third party, in so far as limitation as concerned and it would be counted from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Resultantly, the above revision in Crl.R.C.SR.No.5574 of 2012 is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, the Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed. Accordingly ordered.
18.04.2012 Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. r n s C.S.KARNAN, J r n s To The Inspector of Police, H3 Police Station, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081. Crl.R.C.SR.No.5574 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 18.04.2012