Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Vinod @ Sai D. Ghogale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 October, 2017

K. Jitender Reddy, Hyd 2 Othrs vs District Medical And Health Officer, ... on 17 February, 2022

24. Submitting that when such power is not exercised and when without material details, complaint is lodged, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the decision rendered by High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, between Dr. SAI vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2. In the said decision, the High Court of Bombay at para-18 observed thus :
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Dr. Archana Reddy Datta vs District Medical And Health Officer on 17 February, 2022

24. Submitting that when such power is not exercised and when without material details, complaint is lodged, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the decision rendered by High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, between Dr. SAI vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2. In the said decision, the High Court of Bombay at para-18 observed thus :
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Dr.T.Chandra vs The Appropriate Authority on 27 June, 2023

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appropriate authority filed a complaint without conducting any investigation merely based on the complaint received by her; and that such a procedure is in violation of the provisions of the Act. The appropriate authority ought to have conducted an enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the complaint against the petitioner. The learned 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3108 of 2021 counsel also relied upon the Judgement of the Bombay High Court reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8812 – Dr.Sai Vs. The State of Maharashtra, in support of his submission that the appropriate authority must not act as a mere post office and must file the complaint only if he is satisfied on enquiry that the person has committed the offence under the Act. In the instant case, admittedly the appropriate authority had not conducted any such enquiry. Further, he submitted that the complaint is also silent on the nature of records that were not maintained by the petitioner in the Hospital concerned. In the absence of the said averments in the complaint, there cannot be any presumption against the petitioner under Section 4 (3) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1