Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Rajni Devi vs State on 15 February, 2016

     IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, ADDL. SESSIONS 
         JUDGE ­03 (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI


                                                                         CR No.27/15

       Rajni Devi                            ......               Petitioner 
              vs. 
1.     State                                 .......              Respondent no.1
2.     Nafis Ahmed                           .......              Respondent no.2


                                         ORDER

1. The correctness, propriety and legality of the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 04 (South) is under challenge in this revision petition whereby Mrs. Rajni Devi, Principal, Petitioner herein, has been summoned for appearance u/s 338 IPC.

2. Petitioner filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC before ld. Metropolitan Magistrate against New Ankur Public School (through Manager) and Mrs. Rajni Devi (petitioner herein), Principle, New Ankur Pubic School, New Delhi, 683/3, I­Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. It is painful to observe that the complaint filed by the complainant is poorly drafted and is vague in many respect. One can only make out from the complaint that son of the complainant, who was studying in New Ankur Public School, got injury in his eyes while he Rajni Devi vs. State & Anr.

was in his school. It is not clear in the entire complaint as to what offence has been committed by the petitioner herein Mrs. Rajni Devi (Principal). However the case of the respondent no.2 Nafis Ahmed becomes a bit clear when one peruses the deposition of the witnesses, who were examined u/s 200 Cr.PC. As per the version given by the complainant witness, who were examined u/s 200 Cr.PC, Imran son of Respondent no.2 was studying in New Ankur Public School on 04.08.2005. The son of the respondent no,2 was beaten mercilessly by a student of the school as a result of which he received serious injury on his eyes. The son of the respondent no.2 told the class teacher and Principal about the injury. However they acted in a rash and negligent manner and instead of providing immediate medical treatment and facility they made son of the respondent no.2 sit in the class and told him that he would be allowed to go only when school would be closed for the day. After closure of the school, child came to his home and intimated his mother, who told respondent no.2, father of the child on phone and thereafter respondent no.2 came to the house and took the child to a Doctor at Kalkajee. On the next day, respondent no.2 took his child to Chandiwala hospital, who referred him to AIIMS. On 06.08.2005, respondent no.2 took his son to AIIMS where he was admitted immediately and was operated upon and was discharged on 09.08.2005. The child was again admitted from 26.10.2005 to 29.10.2005 and again Rajni Devi vs. State & Anr.

from 07.12.2005 to 10.12.2005 for surgery. Respondent no.2 continued the treatment of his son at AIIMS and at various other clinics. However his son could not be cured and sustained 30% visually disability. Respondent no.2 examined himself as CW1 and proved disability certificate issued by AIIMS regarding his son as Ex.CW1/B in his deposition. CW4 Dr. Naresh Khalsi deposed that patient Imran aged about 7 years was brought to his clinic on 04.08.2005 at about 4pm with right eye corneal perforation and with history of Trauma. CW4 examined the patient. Since patient has suffered serious damage/injury in his right eyes, therefore, he referred him to hospital for consultation and for examination by an eye surgeon. CW4 further deposed that if treatment was provided forthwith, then the damage could be minimized and the vision could also have been saved.

3. Wife of respondent no.2 and the victim, son of respondent no.2 have been also examined u/s 200 Cr.PC.

4. I have heard Mr. Jasvinder Singh, ld. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor, respondent no.1 and Mr. K. Ansari, ld. counsel for respondent no.2 and carefully perused the Trial court record.

5. Section 338 IPC is being re­produced herein as under:­ "Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any Rajni Devi vs. State & Anr.

act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human lilfe, or the personal safety of others, shall be punsihed with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with find which may extent to one thousand rupees, or with both".

7. The crucial words occuring in Section 338 IPC are, "whoever causes grievous hurt". It is not the case of the respondent no.2 that petitioner caused grievous hurt to son of respondent no.2. Petitioner had no hand in the injury caused to the son of the respondent no.2. The Doctor, who issued the disability certificate was not examined by the complainant and hence the said certificate could not have been proved by the Respondent no.2 as Respondent no.2 is not the author of the said document. Therefore, even negligence on the part of petitioner (Principal) Mrs. Rajni Devi could not be proved in the present case. The word "causes" appearing in Section 338 IPC connotes a positive act which results in hurt to any person. As has been said above, Mrs. Rajni Devi, Principal (petitioner herein) has not caused any hurt to the son of the respondent no.2. Therefore, the impugned order whereby the petitioner herein Mrs. Rajni Devi, Principal has been summoned u/s 338 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly Revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.06.2015 summoning the petitioner herein Mrs. Rajni Devi Principal u/s 338 IPC is set aside as there was no material before ld. Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed against petitioner Rajni Devi vs. State & Anr.

herein Mrs. Rajni Devi, Principal u/s 338 IPC. Trial court record be sent back with the copy of this order. File of revision petition be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court           (SANDEEP YADAV)
on 15.02.2016                  ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­03(SOUTH)
                                  SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI




Rajni Devi vs. State & Anr.
CR No.27/15                                                      Page No. 5