Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sapat Khan vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 22 January, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-33060 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:. 22.01.2013
Sapat Khan ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana & Ors.
... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J This petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought by Sapat Khan, the petitioner for quashing of orders dated 16.9.2011 Annexure P-1 and 7.3.2012 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuh respectively.
The petitioner filed a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat titled as Sapat Khan Vs. Om Parkash & Ors., bearing No.16 dated 10.1.2011, for an offence punishable under sections 326, 328, 419, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC and under section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Taking preliminary evidence, consisting of statements of the complainant as CW1, Sharif as CW2, Mohd. Usman as CW3 and Mr. Shamim, Advocate as CW4, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class heard the counsel for the complainant-petitioner and vide order dated 16.9.2011 found no prima facie case to have been made out to proceed against the accused persons and dismissed the complaint.
Crl. Misc. No. M-33060 of 2012 =2= Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner took the matter in revision before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuh who vide judgment dated 7.3.2012 dismissed the revision.
Still dis-satisfied, the complainant-petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there had been sufficient material for proceeding against the accused persons. He took me through the allegations contained in the complaint and has submitted that reasons given for dismissing the complaint by the Magistrate are not sustainable. He has further submitted that accused no.1 Om Parkash without having any qualification, gave injection to the petitioner which led to gangrene and he was to be operated upon at Solanki Hospital. According to him, the petitioner made reports against Om Parkash to the other accused, but no action was taken and hence they are also liable to be proceeded against for the said offence.
Om Parkash-accused no.1 is said by the complainant to have been working with Dr. N.C. Khera, the latter being a practising doctor at Lal Kuan Chowk, Ferozepur Chowk. According to him, he was going to Dr. N.C. Khera and Om Parkash met him on the way. He disclosed to him about his ailment. He further claimed that Om Parkash called him to his clinic which he had started and gave him an injection which led to shivering and then he again gave him some medicines, but he developed gangrene in his hip where injection was given and he had to be operated upon Crl. Misc. No. M-33060 of 2012 =3= at Solanki Hospital.
The case of the petitioner is that after Om Parkash treated him with injection and medicines. He contacted Dr. Rajesh Sharma at Alwar and it was found by the said doctor that wrong injection and medicines were given which had led to septic on his hip which required surgery. The petitioner had examined Sharif and Mohd. Usman who are claimed to have seen him shivering and Mr. Shamim, Advocate, besides himself appearing as CW1, but has not cared to examine even one of the doctors whom he consulted after taking treatment from Om Parkash. Dr. Rajesh Sharma of Alwar who gave him the opinion that wrong injection and medicines have been given, has not been examined to prove the alleged opinion. The petitioner was said to have been operated at Solanki Hospital, but no doctor from that hospital has been examined by the petitioner. How the Senior Medical Officer and Chief Medical Officer of the District are responsible is not evident from the complaint. No evidence worth the name has been brought against them.
Learned trial court and learned revisional court have taken into consideration all these aspects and have rightly found no prima facie case against the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition is consequently dismissed.
January 22,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE