Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has declined to quash an FIR and chargesheet against three members of a doctor's family accused of threatening a patient's father and shutting off the oxygen supply to an ICU where his child was admitted, holding that the material on record, including statements of nurses and hospital staff, prima facie made out the offence and that the petitioners' defences were matters to be tested at trial rather than in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale was hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC by Dr. Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane and two others, seeking to quash FIR No. 245 of 2021 registered at Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, Pune, under Sections 308, 336, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and the resultant chargesheet.
As per the FIR, on the night of 22.07.2020, while Respondent No.2 was waiting outside the ICU of Sai Jeevan Hospital where his child was admitted, three persons arrived, abused and threatened him, and demanded that he remove the child from the hospital, claiming it belonged to them. On his pleading that it was not possible at night, they allegedly threatened to shut off the oxygen supply if he did not comply, and are alleged to have turned off the oxygen supply to the ICU before assaulting and threatening to kill the treating doctor, Dr. Mahendra Chavan, who was later informed that the assailants were his own in-laws, namely his father-in-law, brother-in-law and nephew.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the real dispute was matrimonial and proprietary in nature, concerning control of the hospital between Dr. Chavan and his wife, Dr. Nilima, whose father had gifted the hospital to the couple; that the petitioners had visited the premises only to treat Dr. Nilima's unwell children after being urgently called by her; and that Dr. Chavan, having earlier failed to secure an order for police investigation on his own private complaint, had instigated Respondent No.2 to lodge the present FIR nearly a year after the alleged incident. It was further submitted that clinical records showed the child's oxygen saturation levels remained normal throughout, contradicting the allegation that the oxygen supply had been shut off.
Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the chargesheet was supported by statements of nurses, watchmen and other eyewitnesses, as well as time-stamped photographs establishing the petitioners' presence at the hospital, and that a prima facie case stood clearly made out, leaving the petitioners' contentions to be examined at trial.
On a perusal of the record, the Court found that the presence of the petitioners at the hospital was not in dispute, that the chargesheet contained statements of hospital staff supporting the allegations, and that the delay in lodging the FIR had been explained on account of the complainant's mental distress and his child's ongoing treatment, a matter for the trial court to weigh rather than one warranting quashing.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399, and Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2540, the Court observed: “It is settled law that, in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or get into the nitty-gritties of the evidence.”
Holding that the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners were, in substance, defences to be raised and tested at trial, and that this was not a case where no offence could be said to be made out on the face of the record, the Court found no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise their defences during the trial.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent-State: Mrs. Megha Bajoria, A.P.P.
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Dhammaraj Shejul with Ms. Pratiksha More and Ms. Neha Blani, Advocates.
Case Title: Dr. Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Writ Petition No. 2553 of 2022
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
