Court says allegations of abuse, assault and switching off oxygen supply disclose a prima facie offence; defence claims and delay in FIR to be tested at trial
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet filed against three doctors and others in connection with a late-night incident at Sai Jeevan Hospital in Pune district, holding that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case and did not justify interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, while hearing the petition filed by Dr. Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane and others, observed that the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or minutely scrutinize defence material at the stage of quashing proceedings. The court held that the allegations in the FIR, supported by witness statements in the charge-sheet, were sufficient to allow the criminal case to proceed.
According to the complaint, the incident occurred on July 22, 2020, when the complainant and his wife were waiting outside the ICU where their child was admitted. Three persons allegedly came to the ICU, abused and threatened the complainant, and told him to remove the child from the hospital. It was further alleged that they switched off the oxygen supply to the ICU, assaulted Dr. Mahendra Chavan, and threatened to kill him and shut down the hospital.
The complainant stated that the persons involved were relatives of Dr. Chavan, and the FIR was lodged later after he claimed to have been mentally disturbed and occupied with his child’s treatment. The petitioners, however, argued that the FIR was a result of matrimonial and property disputes between Dr. Nilima Chavan and Dr. Mahendra Chavan, and that they had been falsely implicated. They also contended that hospital records did not support the allegation that oxygen supply had been cut off.
Rejecting these arguments at the threshold, the court noted that the charge-sheet contained statements of nurses, hospital staff and the watchman, all of which prima facie implicated the petitioners. The court further held that the delay in filing the FIR was explained by the complainant and could not, by itself, justify quashing. Whether the explanation was believable or not was a matter for trial.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, the High Court reiterated that powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and only where no case is made out on the face of the record. Since the petitioners’ claims were essentially defences requiring evidence, the court refused to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Bottom Line :
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet - Where FIR allegations and witness statements in charge-sheet prima facie disclose offences, High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or examine defence material in detail - Delay in lodging FIR, when explained, is a matter for trial - Petition for quashing rightly dismissed.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 308, 336, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2983385
