Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 April, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 3326 of 2018
1. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
2. Dr. Ranjan George Baxla --- --- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rinku Devi
3. Rajendra Institute of Medical Science through its Director
4. Officer-in-charge, Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi--- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioners: Ms. Surabhi, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Awanish Shekhar, A.C to A.A.G-I For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Suchitra Pandey, Advocate For the O.P-RIMS: M/s Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Ayushi, Rajveer Singh, Advocates
---
23 / 22.04.2024 Petitioners Dr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava and Dr. Ranjan George Baxla have filed this application for quashing of the part of the order dated 19.07.2018, passed by the Sri Tarkeshwar Das, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2574 of 2018, whereby and wherein, learned Magistrate after inquiry, found the prima facie case to be true against the petitioners under section 166B of Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons against them to appear before him.
2. Prosecution was instituted on the basis of complaint case filed by the opposite party no. 2, alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the accused no. 1-Balram Saw on 12.05.2011 in accordance with Hintu rites and customs. Accused No. 2-Inar Saw and Accused No. 3-Parbati Devi are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, Accused No. 4-Jay Ram Saw and Accused No. 5-Gayantri Devi are brother-in-law and sister-in-law while Accused No. 6-Sunil Thakur is the mastermind of the entire occurrence. After the marriage, accused persons started demanding dowry. To enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. On 27.04.2018, Accused No. 1-Balram Saw and Accused No.6- Sunil Thakur came to the house of the father of the complainant and took Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Bidai and promised him that in future, they will not subject her to any torture. The complainant went to the house of the accused persons and started her marital life. On 29.04.2018, accused persons forcibly took the complainant to a Tantrik Saleem at Garhwa. On the way to Garhwa near Thale River, all of a sudden, Accused No. 1-Balram Saw poured acid on her face and body. The complainant became unconscious and the accused 2 persons left her there in wounded condition. Due to acid attack, she was grievously injured. On 30.05.2018, when the complainant gained her consciousness, she found herself in RIMS, Ranchi.
3. After inquiry, learned Magistrate found the prima facie case to be true against the named accused persons under sections 326A, 307, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner no. 1- Dr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava is the Director of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, whereas the petitioner no. 2 - Dr. Ranjan George Baxla was working as Professor and Head of Department of Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 19.07.2018 also found the prima facie case to be true against these petitioners under section 166B of Indian Penal Code and thereafter, ordered for issuance of process.
4. Petitioners have challenged the order finding prima facie case to be true under section 166B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The main thrust of the argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the matter was reported to Bariatu Police Station immediately and as such, they had discharged their duty under section 166B of the Indian Penal Code. It is also their case that as soon as the victim was admitted to RIMS, she was given medical treatment. Accordingly, it was prayed that no case under section 166B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against them. As such, order finding prima facie case to be true against them under section 166B of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.
6. In a case of acid attack, section 357-C of Code of Criminal Procedure was introduced mandating as under:
"357C. Treatment of victims.--All hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, shall immediately, provide the first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under section 326A, 376, [376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, and shall immediately inform the police of such incident.]"
7. In the present case, offence as alleged, was committed under section 326-A of the Indian Penal Code. The victim was admitted to RIMS, Ranchi and as per section 357-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the petitioners who were the Director and Head of Department of Surgery at RIMS at the time of occurrence, were to provide first aid to the victim immediately and were also to report the matter to the Officer-in-Charge of the nearest Police Station.
38. Section 166B of Indian Penal Code provides punishment for non- treatment of the victim, which reads as under:
"166B. Punishment for non-treatment of victim.--Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.]"
9. The Officer-in-Charge of Bariatu Police Station within whose jurisdiction RIMS is situated was made opposite party no. 4 in this case. He has filed counter affidavit in this case. He has mentioned in his counter affidavit that doctors have provided PIR's relating to admission of the victim in RIMS vide PIR No. 6150, PIR No. 6863, PIR No. 7612 and PIR No. 9290, but receipt of these PIR's were not available in Bariatu Police Station. He has stated that the victim was brought in burnt condition to Sadar Hospital, Palamau on 29.04.2018. It is apparent from the Emergency Ward Entry vide Registration No. 15175 at 6.20 p.m., she was admitted to Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj and information was given to the Town Police, Daltonganj. Thereafter, her fardbeyan was sent to Garhwa Police Station as the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Garhwa Police Station. He has mentioned that for the said occurrence, Garhwa P.S. Case No. 163 of 2018 dated 30.04.2018 has been registered. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner had instituted two cases for the same incidence, (i) first information report in Garhwa and (ii) complaint case in Ranchi.
10. From the aforesaid counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 4, it is apparent that the victim was first admitted to Sadar Hospital, Palamau and matter was reported to the police which was sent to Garhwa police station for institution of the FIR and police case was accordingly registered. As far as the allegation that the victim was not given treatment at RIMS is concerned, it is apparent that the victim was first admitted at Palamau, from there she was brought to RIMS, Ranchi. Victim has not stated in her solemn affirmation that when she was brought to RIMS, she was not given first aid by the doctors. She has only stated that her father had gone to Bariatu Police Station and he was asked to institute FIR in Garhwa as the occurrence had taken place there.
11. Though, offence alleged is of a very serious nature, but there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners had misused their position and failed 4 to discharge their duties, as provided under section 357-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to make their acts punishable under section 166B of Indian Penal Code.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Part of the order taking cognizance dated 19.07.2018, passed by the Sri Tarkeshwar Das, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2574 of 2018 finding the prima facie case to be true against the petitioners under section 166B of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside.
(Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded