J. Amuthan vs S. Sugumaran

G.M. Akbar Ali, J.—This petition has been filed praying to call for the records in PRC No. 28 of 2012, pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Madurai and quash the same.

The de facto complainant, who was the then Revenue Divisional Officer, lodged a private complaint under Sections 190, 190(1) and Sec. 200(a) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate stating that the petitioner, who was working as a Medical Officer at Central Prison, Madurai, on 21.01.2009 attended the life convict and referred him to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who complied chest pain and on the way to Hospital, the life convict died. Latter, Post-mortem reveal that the deceased was died due to head injuries and therefore, RDO enquiry was ordered and on an enquiry it is found that there was some head injuries on the deceased life convict. Therefore, action has been initiated against all the officials concerned. The present complaint was filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the petitioner, who was working as a Medical Officer at Central Prison, Madurai, failed to mention about the head injuries found on the body of the life convict and simply referred him to the Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, as a case of chest pain and therefore, committed an offence under Section 304 IPC., r/w. 208 of Cr.P.C., along with petitioner one Kumaresan, a Prison Officer was also shown as an accused. The case was taken on file in PRC. No. 28 of 2012 and the same is pending. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner is before this Court stating that he is nothing to do with the any of the offence and he has not inflicted any injuries on the deceased and therefore, it will not attract the offence under Section 304 of IPC. On the basis, he may enquire only for dereliction of duty and even according to the prosecution, the injuries were not caused by the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there were two enquiries. The earlier enquiry does not reveal the involvement and it is also affected by the principles of res judicata, as the prisoner seems to have been died on chest pain. In the meanwhile, the learned counsel filed a memo stating that the de facto complainant filed a private complaint in the capacity of RDO during relevant period and now he retired and he cannot continue the prosecution case.

I have heard the submission made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

A perusal of the private complaint itself shows that no offence is made out by the petitioner and based on an RDO enquiry, the case was initiated and the present RDO has also retired and he cannot maintain a private complaint. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the pendency of the proceedings, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as well as the other other accused also.

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in PRC No. 28 of 2012, pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Madurai, is quashed against this petitioner as well as the other accused also. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.