Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (4.12 seconds)Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Mr. Puneet Saini, Adv. For Petitioner In ... on 31 August, 2022
1. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
Code has been filed for the quashing of criminal complaint No.247 of 2014.
The above-mentioned complaint has been filed with regard to commission of
offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, titled as 'N.S.
Kataria Vs. Dr. Rajesh Verma' and the same is pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurugram.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sirajul & Ors vs The State Of U.P. & Anr on 6 July, 2015
In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has also referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2026 00:22:04 :::
CRM-M-12023-2019 -4-
Court of India in the case of 'Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr.' 2005(3)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 836 and in the case of 'Sirajul & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. &
Anr.' 2015(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 661.
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Signature Not Verified Digitally ... on 5 September, 2022
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the
observations made by this Court in the case of 'Dr. A.K. Gupta vs. Smt. Raj
Sharma' 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 30 and in the case of 'Dr. Vanita Jhunthra
and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.' 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 222.
Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq on 17 February, 2009
12. In the present case, it is also relevant to mention here that in order
to ascertain as to whether any negligence was attributable to the petitioner, in
performing surgery, there was no report of expert committee. Thus, on account
of above-said deficiency also, the cognizance taken by the learned trial Court is
apparently defective. The above-mentioned observation find support from the
principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Martin F.D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq AIR 2009 SC 2049.
Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005
With regard to
above-mentioned observation, the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Jacob Mathew (supra) is also relevant, wherein it
has been laid down that a private complaint may not be entertained unless the
complainant has produced prima faice evidence in the form of credible opinion
by another competent doctor. There is no such opinion in the instant case.
1