Skip to content


Sri M. MunirajA. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWRIT PETITION No. 13711/2011 (GM-POLICE)
Judge
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 154, 156; Constitution of India - Article 226, 227
AppellantSri M. MunirajA.
RespondentThe State of Karnataka and ors.
Advocates:SRI H.R. ANANTHA KR1SHNA MURHTY, Adv.
Excerpt:
[v.g.sabhahit, j.]this writ petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to direct r1 and r2 to forthwith initiate appropriate action against r3 to 6 forthwith in respect of annexs-a, b, d & f.annexures 'r1 to r3' are produced regarding the amount received and petition under article 226 of constitution of india is not maintainable as the petitioner has efficacious, alternative remedy under section 154 and 156 of the code of criminal procedure and therefore petition has to be dismissed......and 6 working in respondent nos. 3 and 4 - m/s. mallige medical centre. the petitioner has already filed complaint before the karnataka medical council against respondent nos. 5 and 6 - medical officers working in respondent: nos. 3 and 4 institution. if any loss is suffered by the petitioner due to medical negligence and if the petitioner is able to prove, the same can be sought for by approaching the consumer grievance redressal forum in accordance with law. however, so far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, code of criminal procedure clearly regulates the procedure to be followed ii the complaint is not registered and it is always open to the petitioner to workout the remedy under the provisions of the code of criminal procedure in accordance with law. this court cannot.....
Judgment:

1. This petition is tiled seeking for mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 forthwith in respect of Annexures A'. B .D and 'F'.

2. Annexure 'A' is the complaint received by the Police Inspector. High Grounds Polio: Station. Bangalore, regarding violation of law and criminal negligence alleging that the patient was forcibly shifted from Mallige Medical Centre - respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and that the respondents have not taken action in accordance with law. Annexure B' is the complaint filed before the Police Commissioner reiterating the averments made in the complaint - Annexure 'A together with acknowledgement. Annexure C is the representation given to the Health Minister reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Annexure 'D is the letter of the Health Department to the Officer of the District Health and Family Welfare Department.

3. It is averred in the Writ Petition that separate complaint is filed before the Karnataka Medical Council regarding negligence on the part of the Medical Officers and this petition is filed only to consider the registered complaint made and to investigate the matter on the basis of the said complaint.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos, 3 to 6 filed counter averring that various allegations have been made in the Writ Petition. The allegation that petitioner has spent more than Rupees seven lakhs is totally false to the knowledge of the petitioner and they have been denied by the answering respondents. Annexures 'R1 to R3' are produced regarding the amount received and petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable as the petitioner has efficacious, alternative remedy under Section 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore petition has to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Writ Petition is filed only to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to register the complaint given by the petitioner and to investigate the same in accordance with law. Wherefore, direction may he issued. He further submitted that regarding medical negligence appropriate action is being taken by filing complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council against the erring Medical Officer. Wherefore, Writ Petition may be allowed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the averments made in the objection statement and submitted that petition itself is not maintainable and petitioner to workout the remedy in accordance with law under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. I have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record.

9. The material on record would clearly show that the allegation of the petitioner is regarding negligence on the part of the Medical Officers; namely, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 working in respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - M/s. Mallige Medical Centre. The petitioner has already filed complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 - Medical Officers working in respondent: Nos. 3 and 4 Institution. If any loss is suffered by the petitioner due to medical negligence and if the petitioner is able to prove, the same can be sought for by approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in accordance with law. However, so far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, Code of Criminal Procedure clearly regulates the procedure to be followed ii the complaint is not registered and it is always open to the petitioner to workout the remedy under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law. This Court cannot direct, the Police to register the complaint and investigate into the matter. Accordingly, I hold that the petition is devoid of merit and the same is disposed of accordingly. However, disposal of the Writ Petition would not preclude the petitioners to workout the remedy in accordance with law under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //