Telangana HC quashes medical negligence case on oncologist
The doctor had filed a criminal petition challenging the dismissal of his discharge petition by the III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The case originates from a complaint filed on April 29, 2013, under Section 200 of the CrPC, alleging medical negligence resulting in the death of the complainant's mother on November 12, 2009.
Based on the complaint, a chargesheet was filed against the doctor under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) of the IPC.
He had approached the trial court seeking discharge, arguing that no prima facie case was made out against him. He contended that there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint, the charges lacked the requisite legal ingredients, and the allegations did not disclose any role or deficiency in service attributable to him.
Senior counsel representing the oncologist asserted that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the continuation of proceedings amounted to an abuse of legal process.
The assistant public prosecutor, however, maintained that since the trial court had already taken cognizance of the offences and the chargesheet disclosed a prima facie case, the revision petition did not merit interference by the high court.
After hearing both parties, Justice Venugopal observed that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any causal link between Dr Reddy's medical advice and the patient's death, ruling out the applicability of Section 304-A IPC, which deals with death caused by rash or negligent acts.
The court further noted that there was no evidence of conspiracy to warrant charges under Section 120(B) IPC.
'The entire record shows that the petitioner has only suggested some tests to be done for determination of the disease. From an overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances, none of the ingredients of the alleged sections of law warrant taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner,' the orders stated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
17 minutes ago
- India.com
ED Seeks 7-year Imprisonment For Robert Vadra In Gurugram Land Deal Case
The Enforcement Directorate has asked a special PMLA court in Delhi to award the highest punishment — seven years in prison — to Robert Vadra and others accused in the 2008 Gurugram land deal case. According to the agency's prosecution complaint, the ED has also urged the court to permit the government to seize 43 immovable properties that it claims were bought by Vadra and his associates using using proceeds of crime (PoC) generated through money laundering. The Special PMLA court in Delhi has fixed August 28 to take cognisance of the ED complaint and issued a notice to Vadra. While elaborating on the mode of generation of PoC of money laundering by Robert Vadra in the land deal, the ED alleged in the complaint that the husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and other accused also committed a penal offence of dishonest or fraudulent execution of a deed of transfer containing false statements (Section 423 of Indian Penal Code). In its prosecution complaint filed in a Special PMLA court in Delhi, the ED sought a maximum of seven years imprisonment for Vadra and other accused under Section 4 (Punishment for money laundering) and suggested penal or criminal action for the fraudulent execution of the deed. 'The transfer deed was executed containing a false statement of consideration with regards to receipt of sale consideration by the seller from the buyer and with regards to the total amount of consideration as well, thereby violating the provisions of section 423 of IPC. The buyer had never issued the cheque to the seller and the cheque mentioned in the sale deed did not pertain to the buyer,' said the chargesheet. Alleging a loss of Rs 44 lakh caused to Haryana government in stamp duty, the ED said: 'The sale deed refers the valuation of the said land at Rs 7.50 crore, on the contrary the seller got the payment of Rs 7.95 crore on August 9, 2008 (against sale consideration and stamp duty); and Rs 7.43 crore on August 16, 2008 (additional sale consideration). The undervaluation of the land directly leads to evasion of stamp duty.' Earlier, the ED justified its decision to file the PMLA case in the Special Court in Delhi by claiming that all the accused, except one, reside in Delhi and all the entities associated with the accused, which are involved in the process of money laundering, are registered in the Delhi jurisdiction. It is submitted that the FIR in this case was filed by the Gurugram Police. However, the offence of money laundering was committed by the accused at various places/states including Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan. 'Further, most of the bank accounts of the entities associated with Vadra, identified as accused number 1, are also situated in Delhi and used by the accused in Delhi to acquire assets or to satisfy the liabilities of companies registered in Delhi,' it said. The ED said that Vadra received Rs 58 crore as proceeds of crime (PoC) of the involved money laundering and claimed that its investigation led to the provisional attachment of 43 immovable properties, totalling Rs 38.69 crore, identified as direct or value equivalent to Proceeds of Crime. Seeking confiscation of the 43 immovable properties, the ED said: 'The complaint is filed with the prayer to punish the accused persons under Section 4 (Punishment for money laundering,) which is a rigorous imprisonment for three to seven years and confiscation by the government of the properties earned by the accused as proceeds of crime.' (With IANS Inputs)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
U'khand HC asks CJ to decide if BNSS overrides state's stricter CrPC amendment
Dehradun: A single-judge bench of the Uttarakhand high court referred a key legal conflict to the Chief Justice bench, asking whether section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which expanded anticipatory bail rights, could override the Uttarakhand State Amendment to section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and apply retrospectively to cases filed before BNSS came into force. The order dated Aug 8, 2025, arose in Harish Kumar Prajapati v Central Bureau of Investigation, with anticipatory bail application no. 133 of 2025 treated as the lead matter. Justice Alok Kumar Verma heard a batch of anticipatory bail pleas and said, "Anticipatory bail is a safeguard against arbitrary arrest. It is a pre-emptive measure to protect personal liberty from false accusations or misuse of the law. Liberty is the very quintessence of a civilised existence." He added that BNSS continued to protect personal liberty and that the restrictions under section 438(6) of CrPC, as amended by Uttarakhand, appeared to be no longer in effect. He noted that the state had consciously avoided amending section 482 BNSS to restore those curbs. Disagreeing with an earlier coordinate bench that had rejected such appeals, he referred the issue to a larger bench headed by the chief justice. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 20 Things Women Should NEVER Wear! Undo State counsel argued that the anticipatory bail applications were not maintainable under the amended section 438 CrPC or section 531 BNSS. The court also noted that Uttarakhand had not amended section 482 of BNSS after the new code came into force. Applicant counsel countered that anticipatory bail was a substantive right, not just a procedural safeguard, and said, "In BNSS, there is no express bar prohibiting anticipatory bail for offences under IPC and other Acts, even if committed before its commencement. The law must protect, not restrict, the rights of the accused." He cited an Allahabad high court judgment that held section 482 BNSS would prevail over a state amendment. Recent rulings of Allahabad HC — on Jun 12–14 and Jul 4 — have held that with BNSS replacing CrPC from Jul 1, 2024, the earlier bar on anticipatory bail in serious offences under state amendments has been removed, as the omission of those restrictions in BNSS was deliberate. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Court convicts ex-MCD engineer in 2006 case registered by CBI
New Delhi, A court here has convicted a former assistant engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under IPC section 217 . Court convicts ex-MCD engineer in 2006 case registered by CBI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nishant Garg was hearing allegations against accused Vijay Kumar Jain, against whom the Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case. According to the prosecution, the owners of 15 properties in the west Punjabi Bagh area were booked by the civic body for unauthorised construction in July 2004 but Jain, the then assistant engineer of the MCD, retained the files to prevent action against the properties. In an order dated August 7, the court said, "It can be concluded that accused V K Jain intentionally retained the subject 15 files with him", despite knowing that orders were passed for issuing demolition notices regarding 12 properties and that demolition orders were passed for the three remaining properties. It said Jain retained the files to prevent action being taken against these properties, despite being aware of the Delhi High Court's direction on April 11, 2005, where it had asked the MCD to take action in accordance with law against the properties and file a compliance report within four months. "The prosecution has led sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty for the commission of the offence under section 217 of the IPC and is convicted for the said offence," the court said. The matter has been posted for hearing the arguments on sentencing on Monday. The magistrate rejected the defence's argument that the CBI, despite being aware that, at most, it was a case of misconduct, deliberately lodged an FIR for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act to bypass the requirement of obtaining permission from the magistrate to investigate a non-cognisable offence. "I am not in agreement with the contention of the defence counsel. Perusal of the preliminary enquiry report reveals that it specifically mentions that accused Jain has committed criminal misconduct and abused his position as a public servant to cause favour to the owners of 15 properties," he said. The magistrate said along with Jain, other MCD officials and the 15 property owners were also made accused in the FIR. "Hence, it cannot be said that the FIR was intentionally registered by the investigating agency under the stringent provisions of the PC Act," the magistrate said. The CBI had registered the FIR under PC Act provisions regarding criminal misconduct by a public servant and under the penal provision for criminal conspiracy against Jain and others. The court had, however, framed charge against Jain under IPC section 217 in July 2018. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
