Shaji vs State Of Kerala

Petitoiner, a Doctor by profession, is arrayed as the 3rd accused in C.C.No.20 of 2012 pending on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The case arose from Crime No.578 of 2008 registered at the Medical College Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 468, 471, 193, 196, 120B, 201, 204 and 211 r/w 34 of IPC. The short facts

leading to the registration of the crime are as under:

On 28.11.1998, one Dr.Tom Kurian, a student at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram was assaulted by a patient. Some of the Doctors retaliated

and assaulted the patient and his relatives. Crimes were registered against the patient and the Doctors. One Dr.Mathew Abraham and few other

Doctors were arrested in connection with the crime. On his production before the jurisdictional Magistrate, Dr.Mathew Abraham complained that

Sri.Gopalakrishnan, the Circle Inspector of Police, had tortured him in custody. Based on the complaint, the Magistrate registered a case and directed

to admit Dr.Mathew Abraham in the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. On examination at the General Hospital, Dr.Mathew Abraham was

found to have sustained injuries to his kidney and liver and was referred to the Medical College Hospital. In the ultra sound scan taken at the Medical

College Hospital, the injuries to the kidney and liver was confirmed. Based on the complaint of Dr.Mathew Abraham, crime was registered against

Sri.Gopalakrishnan and the Government accorded sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C to prosecute the accused by the Police officer. Later,

Sri.Gopalakrishnan filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court alleging that Dr.Mathew Abraham and some other Doctors had made

false entries in the treatment records, so as to implicate him. The complaint was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and accordingly,

Crime No.578 of 2008 was registered at the Medical College Police Station and is now pending as C.C.No.20 of 2012.

Accused Nos.1,2, 4, 6 and 8 in C.C.No.20 of 2012 had approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against them. By Annexure III

common order in Crl.M.C.No.6397 of 2013 and connected cases, this Court quashed the proceedings against those accused, finding no effort to have

been taken by the investigating officer to prove the alleged forgery and falsification of entries in the medical/scan reports. It was held that the

materials relied on by the prosecution did not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners. Annexure IV is a common order by which the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the discharge applications filed by accused Nos.7, 9 and 10 in C.C.No.20 of 2012. A perusal of the order

shows that the learned Magistrate had allowed the petition finding that the proceedings against the first accused having been quashed by this Court, no

purpose would be served by proceeding with the trial against the other accused.

In the light of Annexure III order of this Court and Annexure IV of the trial court, by which the proceedings against some of the accused is

quashed and some others discharged, absolutely no purpose would be served by proceeding with the case against the petitioner. The role attributed to

the petitioner is similar to or even lesser than that of the other accused. Being so, compelling the petitioner to face trial will amount to an abuse of

process of court.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed, proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.20 of 2012 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court is

quashed.