Dr. Vinay Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand and another

LOK PAL SINGH, J.

Heard.

Present petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.05.2010, as also summoning order dated

08.06.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar in criminal case no. 2568 of 2010 State vs. Furkan and others for the

offences punishable under sections 304B and 202 IPC.

Second respondent-complainant lodged the first information report against Furkan (husband of the deceased), Kurban (brother in law/JETH),

Akhtari mother in law and Mehraj (sister-in-law/JETHANI) with the averments that marriage of his sister (Parveen) was solemnized with Furkan on

11.12.2009 as per the Muslim Rites. At the time of marriage, his father gave sufficient dowry but the in-laws were unhappy with the dowry and on

account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry, were regularly harassing the sister of the complainant. On 28.02.2010, he received information on

mobile that the aforesaid persons have killed his sister.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a Doctor by profession and runs a nursing home in the name and style of Vinay

Nursing Home, when the deceased was brought to the petitioner’s nursing home, petitioner was not there at that point of time. The condition of

the complainant’s sister was critical and as a matter of routine, a receipt of ` 250/-has been issued in the name of the deceased by the staff but

she was not admitted in the hospital and during general checkup it was found that Parveen (sister of the complainant) was brought dead.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited to the Hospital and inquired about the death of the deceased. After completion of investigation,

charge sheet under section 202 IPC has been submitted against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has not informed the police about the

incident. It is further submitted that since there is no evidence available on record to convict the petitioner, therefore continuation of criminal

proceedings against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. It is also submitted that petitioner is a reputed Doctor and is not involved in the crime.

Further it is submitted that prosecution witnesses, namely, Faiya, Mumtiyaz and Parvez have not made any allegation against the present petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that continuation of

proceedings under section 202 IPC against the reputed Doctor would be a futile exercise, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings liable

to be quashed.

Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Charge sheet dated 24.05.2010, as also summoning order dated 08.06.2010 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

However, it is made clear that criminal proceedings against the other accused persons shall continue.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Magistrate concerned.