H.C.MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the State. No one appeared for the complainant respondent No. 2 in spite of repeated calls, even though, the respondent No. 2 has appeared through Advocate. The case was earlier heard on 18.6.2012 in part, but as no one appeared for the respondent No. 2 in spite of repeated calls, the case was adjourned. On 19.6.2012 also, no one appeared for the respondent No. 2 in spite of repeated calls and accordingly, the case was heard.
(2.) THE petitioner No.1 -Dr. D. Mohan and petitioner No. 2 - Jogesh Gambhir, who is the Director of Raj Hospital, Ranchi, have filed this writ application for quashing the charges framed against them on 6.1.2004 in S.T. No. 564 of 2003, including the order dated 6.1.2004 for framing the charge for offences under Sections 304, 420 and 384 of the I.P.C. against them in the said S.T. No. 564 of 2003, passed by Sri R.N. Tiwary, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the said Sessions Trial. The complaint case was filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rachi, by the respondent No. 2 - Premchand Singh, in which, the Raj Hospital, the petitioner No. 2 - Jogesh Gambhir being the Director of Raj Hospital and the petitioner NO.1 - Dr. D. Mohan being the Chief Medical Officer, were made accused, on the allegation that on 17.12.1998, the son of the complainant namely, Saket Saurabh who was suffering from blood cancer since, the year 1997 and undergoing treatment for the said ailment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, was taken to Raj Hospital, as he developed breathlessness and low pulse rate. The complainant informed the authorities of the hospital that his son was a patient of blood cancer and at the time of admission, handed over the entire papers relating to the treatment of his son at Tata Memorial Hospital and he repeatedly asked the authorities of the hospital for transfusion of blood to his son to minimize the breathlessness. It is alleged that the doctors at the hospital did not take care and they insisted upon to deposit Rs. 1,000/ - and only thereafter, the treatment was to be started, which took some time. Ultimately, the child was admitted in Room No. 105 where the doctor visited the patient and subsequently, the petitioner Dr. D. Mohan also visited him. All the papers relating to the treatment of the patient was submitted to the petitioner Dr. D. Mohan and the complainant on account of his past experience requested the) doctor for immediate blood transfusion, but the doctor did not give any medication till 2 P.M. The contention of the complainant was found correct when the blood report showed that the Haemoglobin was very low. It is stated in the complaint petition that though the complainant is not a doctor but he was aware of the fact that the blood cancer causes anemia and during severe anemia, a person complains breathlessness. Saket Saurabh was also complaining breathlessness and low pulse rate, so the doctor ought to have got Haemoglobin tested immediately and blood transfusion ought to have done at once. It is further alleged that the doctor was also informed that the child had not taken anything for the last 24 hours and as such, the doctor ought to have administered N.S or Dextrose. However, at 2 P.M. the child was given one tablet of Claribid and RezQ 300, which is anti malarial and a Quinine derivative which should not have been given to the patient of blood cancer, because the biggest side effect of Quinine derivative is that it may cause blood dyscrasis, hepatits and anemia. As the patient Saket Saurabh was already anemic, the said medicine should never have been given to Saket Saurabh. At about 6 P.M. the blood transfusion was started and from the same needle, Gentamycin and Ampllos 500 vails were pushed. The complainant has mentioned the side effects of Gentamycin in the complaint petition and has stated that it should never have been mixed with another medicine. On account of administration of these medicines blood transfusion actually started at about 7 P.M., and the patient Saket Saurabh died at about 7.35 P.M. Alleging that the treatment was not started immediately as the accused were inducing the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly to deposit Rs. 1,000/ - for immediately starting the treatment, the accused persons had committed offences under Sections 304, 420, 384 of the Indian Penal Code. With these allegations, the complaint case was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 31 of 1999.
(3.) IT may be stated that in the said complaint case, at the stage of enquiry the statement of the complainant was recorded on SA and the statements of five witnesses were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The order taking cognizance was challenged before this Court by the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No. 3303 of 2001, which was dismissed by Order dated 28.6.2001. Subsequently, in the Court of Session, the prosecution and the accused were heard on the point of framing of charge and the charge was framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 304, 420, 384 of the I.P.C., by order dated 6.1.2004, which has been challenged in this writ application, praying to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the said S.T. No. 564 of 2003, including the order dated 6.1.2004 passed therein for framing of charge.;