CRM-M No. 15149 of 2009. D/d. 31.05.2024 [Dr. Sanjiv Gupta and ors.
Versus Prashant]
CRM-M No. 369 of 2009 and CRM-M-12502 of 2024 [Sanjiv Gupta and ors. Versus State
of Haryana and ors.]
1. The petitioners, qualified doctors, have filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking:
• Quashing of FIR No. 317 (dated 27.06.2008) registered under Sections 304-A
(death by negligence), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention)
IPC at PS Central, Faridabad.
• Quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 941 (dated 21.07.2008).
• Quashing of Summoning Orders (dated 10.11.2008) issued in connection
with the FIR and complaint.
2. FACTS:
Complaint Filed: A man named Parshant filed a complaint on 23.02.2008, alleging that his
father, Shri Laxman Jati Garg, died due to negligence and mismanagement by doctors at
Central Hospital, Faridabad. He accused Dr. Pranjit Bhowmik, Dr. Sanjiv Gupta, and Dr.
Satyendra Sahay of prolonging treatment unnecessarily, providing improper care, and coercing
the family to pay excessive amounts of money.
Sequence of Events:
• The patient was first admitted to Sidhi Vinayak Clinic on 10.01.2008 and referred to
Central Hospital.
• Despite the doctors' assurances, the patient’s condition worsened. He was moved
between the general ward and ICU multiple times but didn’t receive proper treatment
for his ailment.
• The complainant alleged that the hospital lacked necessary specialists and deliberately
delayed the discharge to extract more money.
• On 26.01.2008, the family finally discharged the patient and took him to AIIMS, Delhi,
where doctors indicated the condition had worsened due to prior treatment. The patient
passed away on 01.02.2008.
Initial Inquiry:
• The Senior Superintendent of Police forwarded the complaint to the Deputy
Commissioner, who asked the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to investigate.
• A Board of Doctors conducted the inquiry and submitted a report on 09.04.2008,
finding the accused doctors negligent in their treatment of the patient.
Second Inquiry:
• The accused doctors challenged the findings and requested a review.
• Another inquiry was conducted by two private consultants, Dr. Sanjay Kumar
(Gastroenterologist) and Dr. Jitender Kumar (Nephrologist) from Fortis Escorts
Hospital.
• This second inquiry concluded that the treatment provided at Central Hospital was
technically correct.
FIR and Court Proceedings:
• Despite the conflicting inquiry reports, an FIR was registered based on the first report
dated 09.04.2008, and a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the
accused doctors.
• The doctors filed a petition (CRM-M-369-2009) in the High Court challenging the FIR.
A stay on trial court proceedings was granted on 21.01.2009.
Separate Criminal Complaint:
• /-wi -
2Before the High Court petition, the complainant filed a separate criminal complaint
on 21.07.2008, seeking action under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence),
420 (cheating), 406, 384, 342, and 506 of the IPC.
• Based on the first inquiry report, the Magistrate summoned the accused doctors on
10.11.2008, alleging negligence and dishonest misrepresentation of Rs. 2,25,000/-.
Current Status:
• The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and summoning
order, claiming they were wrongly implicated based on an inquiry that had conflicting
findings.
3. ANALYSIS:
The case concerns allegations of medical negligence against three doctors (Dr.
Bhoumik, Dr. Sahay, and Dr. Sanjeev Gupta) at Central Hospital following the death
of a patient, Laxman Garg. An inquiry report dated 09.04.2008 by a Board of Doctors
held the three doctors equally responsible for improper diagnosis, ignoring specialist
advice, excessive use of sedatives and diuretics, negligence in providing emergency
care, and lack of timely referral to a higher center. The report highlighted several
instances of mismanagement, including failure to provide an ambulance, discharge
delays, and prioritizing billing over patient welfare. The patient died at AIIMS on
01.02.2008 due to sepsis, pneumonia, and worsening encephalopathy.
The doctors challenged the findings, citing a second inquiry report favoring them, but
the court deferred such evaluation to the trial stage. The court noted that the initial
inquiry was conducted per guidelines in Jacob Mathew's case and was comprehensive.
It also observed that the patient's death summary from AIIMS and a compensation order
by the Consumer Forum confirmed prima facie negligence. The court declined to quash
the FIR, citing pending discharge applications and one doctor being declared a
proclaimed person. Evaluation of evidence, including expert opinions, was left to the
trial court.
4. FINAL ORDER:
The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in them. It noted that the case had
been pending since 2009, with proceedings at the trial court stayed, largely due to the
petitioners seeking repeated adjournments. Considering the FIR was filed in 2008, the
court directed the trial court to expedite the trial's conclusion.
CRM-M-22661 of 2024. D/d. 27.08.2024. Satwant Singh Versus State of Haryana
The petition was filed to quash the impugned order dated 31.08.2023, passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender under FIR No. 184,
dated 08.06.2018, registered under Sections 427, 435, and 506 of the IPC.
1. Petitioner’s Arguments:
o The proclamation order violated the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
o Summons/warrants were not served as per guidelines for individuals residing
abroad under Section 105 of the Cr.P.C.
o The petitioner was abroad during the issuance of summons and had not
intentionally evaded the process.
2. State’s Arguments:
o The petitioner failed to appear before the court despite knowing about the case
and the dismissal of his anticipatory bail application.
o All legal procedures under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. were duly followed.
3. Court’s Observations:
o The petitioner was abroad during the issuance of non-bailable warrants, as
confirmed by the process server’s report.
o The trial court did not follow proper procedure to serve summons through the
embassy, which violated Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and established legal
principles (e.g., Jagjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab).
4. Developments During Proceedings:
o The High Court stayed the proclamation order on 07.05.2024.
o The petitioner later surrendered before the trial court on 17.05.2024 and was
granted bail.
5. Conclusion:
o The proclamation order was declared unsustainable as it was issued without
proper compliance with legal procedures for serving individuals residing
abroad.
o Since the petitioner is now facing trial, the objective of securing his presence
has been achieved.
Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 31.08.2023, along with all
consequential proceedings, was set aside. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
CRR-2518-2019 (O&M) JAI BHAGWAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA -
CRR-2881-2019 (O&M) NARENDER ALIAS KOHLI V/S JAI BHAGWAN AND
OTHERS
1. Facts Considered:
• The complainant/victim in CRR-2881-2019 did not suffer any grievous
injury.
• The accused (petitioners in CRR-2518-2019) have endured a prolonged
trial of over 15 years.
• The accused were granted suspension of sentence by the court (orders
dated 10.11.2021 and 14.02.2022) and complied with all terms without
misuse.
• Both petitions arise from the same case, challenging the legality of a
common judgment of conviction and sentence.
• CRR-2518-2019: Filed by 9 convicted individuals challenging their
conviction and sentence.
• CRR-2881-2019: Filed by the victim seeking enhanced punishment and
compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Legal Basis: Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 allows courts
to release offenders on probation of good conduct if the offence isn’t punishable
by life imprisonment or death.
3. Key Observations:
• The accused have already served 2 years out of the total 3-year sentence.
• Sending them back to prison after such a long time would serve no
meaningful purpose, especially as they have reintegrated into society
and are earning livelihoods for their families.
4. Release on Probation:
• The court decided to release all 8 surviving accused on probation for the
remaining period of their sentence under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, subject to the following conditions:
▪ Execute a Bond: Each accused must execute a bond for good
behavior with two solvent sureties worth ₹50,000 each, before
the trial court, within 2 months.
▪ Undertaking: The accused must give an undertaking to
maintain peace, exhibit good behavior, and appear in court if
required.
▪ Bond Duration: The bond will remain valid for the remaining
sentence period.
▪ Supervision: They will remain under the supervision of a
Probation Officer, as per the Act.
▪ Compensation: Each accused must deposit ₹25,000 with the
trial court as compensation for the victim. The court will ensure
the victim receives this amount.
5. Breach of Conditions:
• If any accused breaches the above conditions, they will be immediately
taken into custody and required to serve the remainder of their sentence.
6. Compensation to Victim:
• The court deemed the compensation directed above as adequate for
addressing the victim’s grievance (CRR-2881-2019).
7. Disposition of Petitions:
• Both petitions (CRR-2518-2019 and CRR-2881-2019) were disposed of
accordingly.
8. Noteworthy Judgments:
• Sita Ram Paswan v. State of Bihar SC: The court emphasized a
balanced approach, considering the offence’s gravity and the offender’s
circumstances.
• Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab HC: A 14-year litigation delay, good
behaviour during bail, and being a first-time offender were deemed
sufficient for probation.
CRM-M-18847 of 2019. D/d. 20.12.2024. Central Bureau of Investigation Versus
Gurmeet Ram Rahim and anr.
1. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the order
dated 16.02.2019 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Panchkula.
2. The Magistrate directed the CBI (the petitioner) to provide specific documents and
witness statements to the defense counsel of respondents No.1 and No.2 [An. P-1]:
For Respondent No.1:
• Statements of witnesses mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 12 of their application.
• Two documents mentioned in paragraph 14 of the application dated 25.01.2019.
For Respondent No.2:
• Statements of witnesses mentioned in paragraph 5 of their application.
• Three documents mentioned in paragraph 7 of the application dated 31.01.2019.
3. Facts
• Background of the Case:
▪ The respondents are facing trial under FIR No. RC1(S)/2015, dated
07.01.2015, registered under Sections 120B, 326, 417, and 506 of the
IPC by the CBI.
▪ The FIR stems from a High Court order dated 23.12.2014, issued after
allegations by the petitioner (a victim) against Gurmeet Ram Rahim
(Respondent No.1) of forcibly castrating him and 400 others under the
pretext of attaining spiritual enlightenment.
• Investigation and Charges:
▪ Following the High Court's direction, the CBI investigated and found
that Dr. Pankaj Garg (Respondent No.2) performed castration surgeries
at the behest of Respondent No.1. A chargesheet was filed on
01.02.2018.
• Respondents' Applications for Documents:
▪ Respondent No.1 filed multiple applications under Sections 207 and 91
of the Cr.P.C. (March 2018 and September 2018) seeking witness
statements and documents.
▪ These applications were initially rejected by the trial court and later
partially allowed by the High Court (03.12.2018), permitting inspection
of relevant documents.
• Current Petition:
▪ After the High Court's partial allowance, Respondents No.1 and No.2
filed new applications under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. (January 2019)
for additional documents and statements.
▪ The trial court allowed these applications on 16.02.2019 (Annexure P-
1), directing the CBI to provide:
➢ Witness statements and documents mentioned in the applications
by both respondents.
➢ The CBI is now challenging this order in the present petition,
asserting that the order is improper.
4. Analysis:
• Applications were filed (dated 25.01.2019 and 31.01.2019) by the accused
(Respondents 1 and 2) under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking:
▪ Statements of 87 witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but not
relied upon by the prosecution in the charge sheet.
▪ Certain documents not appended to the charge sheet but deemed relevant
by the accused to test the prosecution's evidence and build their defense.
• Reasoning by Accused:
▪ The statements and documents are necessary for cross-examination of
Prosecution Witness-1 (PW-1) and other witnesses to confront
inconsistencies, impeach their credibility, and support the defense case.
• Orders by the Special Judicial Magistrate:
▪ Allowed the applications and directed production of the requested
statements and documents, reasoning that they are relevant, necessary,
and desirable for the accused to conduct a fair trial and cross-examine
witnesses.
▪ Example cited: PW-1 claimed in chief examination that a person
(referred to as "Rinku") gave him a Pepsi before a castration surgery,
but Rinku's Section 161 statement contains no such reference. This was
considered relevant for cross-examination.
• Observations and Findings by the High Court:
▪ Scope and Use of Section 161 Statements:
➢ Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not
substantive evidence and can only be used to contradict a
prosecution witness during cross-examination as per Section 162
Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
➢ These statements cannot be used for any purpose other than
contradiction, which limits their admissibility.
▪ Deficiency in the Magistrate’s Order:
➢ The Magistrate failed to specifically evaluate the necessity,
relevance, and desirability of the requested 87 statements
individually. Instead, the order broadly permitted their
production based on general reasoning.
➢ The Magistrate relied on a few examples, like Rinku’s statement,
but allowed production of all 87 statements without detailed
assessment.
▪ Regarding Documents Sought:
➢ Some requested documents, including the case diary and a status
report filed by the CBI in the High Court, are protected under
Section 172(3) Cr.P.C., which restricts the accused from
accessing such records unless specific conditions are met.
➢ A status report is not part of the investigation record and cannot
be provided to the accused as it is merely informational.
▪ Error in Ruling on Production:
➢ The Magistrate wrongly presumed that lack of a specific request
by the prosecution (CBI) to withhold certain records implied
automatic entitlement for the defense.
➢ The High Court emphasized that relevance and admissibility are
essential prerequisites for producing documents/statements
under Section 91 Cr.P.C..
▪ Conclusion by the High Court:
➢ The Magistrate’s order (Annexure P-1) permitting production of
the statements and documents is legally unsound because:
✓ It overlooks the limited use of Section 161 statements.
✓ It fails to properly assess the relevance and necessity of
each statement/document requested.
✓ It contravenes the restrictions in Section 172(3) Cr.P.C.
regarding case diaries and similar documents.
➢ The order was set aside, as the defense seemed to be engaging in
a "fishing inquiry" by seeking broad access to irrelevant or
inadmissible material, which is impermissible under the law.
5. Decision:
• The High Court has set aside the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate
(Annexure P-1) and sent the matter back to the trial court/Special Judicial
Magistrate for reconsideration of the applications dated 25.01.2019 and
31.01.2019. The trial court has been instructed to reassess the applications in
accordance with the legal principles outlined in the judgment.
• Additionally, given the prolonged pendency of the matter since 2019, the High
Court has directed the trial court to decide the applications within four weeks
from the date of this order. The interim order issued by the High Court on
01.05.2023 (mentioned in paragraph 21 of the judgment) will remain effective
until the trial court makes its fresh decision.
