Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, whereby the discharge application of the revisionist under Sections 326, 338, 506 I.P.C. in Case No.9944 of 2010, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, was rejected.
(2.) The brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of this revision, are that on 28.12.2009 at about 11.15 a.m. opposite party no.2 got admitted his daughter-in-law in the nursing home of the revisionist and at about 9.45 p.m. a baby was born by normal delivery. An illegal demand of Rs.2000/- was made by the nursing home as gift, which was denied by opposite party no.2, due to which doctor and staff annoyed and with an intention to torture, committed negligence and kept the baby near the blower by which his leg became burnt. Further allegation is that at the time of discharge, doctor had taken Rs.15,000/- but a receipt of Rs.9,450/- was given to opposite party no.2. FIR was lodged on 03.01.2010 under Sections 338, 506 I.P.C. in Case Crime No.7 of 2010 at Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist and co-accused Aliza Jown under Sections 326, 338, 506 I.P.C. On 31.08.2010 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the summons. On 22.9.2010 Sub Inspector moved an application for permission of further investigation under Section 178(8) Cr.P.C. which was allowed. Further after completion of charge sheet, the revisionist moved an application before the D.I.G., Gorakhpur with the prayer for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. As a result of further investigation Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that revisionist had no concerned with the alleged incident. The revisionist moved a discharge application which was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur vide order dated 19.3.2012. Aggrieved against that order, revisionist filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.11705 of 2012 before this Court and this Court set aside the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur and directed to decide the discharge application of the revisionist on merit vide order dated 05.04.2012. In compliance of the order dated 05.04.2012, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considering the facts and circumstances rejected the discharge application of the revisionist vide order dated 25.06.2012. Aggrieved against the same, present revision has been preferred.
(3.) I have heard Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.;