Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR.VIGNESH versus J.MEENA

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr.Vignesh v. J.Meena - Crl.R.C.(MD)No.610 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 11 (2 January 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02/01/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.610 of 2005

and

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5352 of 2005

Dr.Vignesh . . . Petitioner

Vs.

J.Meena . . . Respondent

This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.07.2005, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2275 of 2004, by the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian

For respondent : Mr.D.Selvaraj

:ORDER



The criminal revision petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2005, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2275 of 2004, by the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul.

2. The respondent herein as complainant has filed a private complaint under Sections 190 & 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the file of the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul, wherein the present revision petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused. It is stated in the complaint that prior to two years the complainant has married the deceased Jayakumar. On 08.07.2004 at about 09.00 P.M. The said Jayakumar has met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries and subsequently, he has been taken to the Government Hospital, Dindigul. The first accused has referred the deceased to one Pandiyammal Scan Centre and accordingly, the same has been done. The first accused has demanded Rs.15,000/- for doing operation. The second accused has also demanded the same. The complainant has not been able to meet the demands of the accused 1 & 2 and for the same reason, the accused 1 & 2 have not given treatment to the deceased and due to their failure the deceased had passed away. Therefore, both the accused had committed offences under Sections 304(II) and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

3. The complaint has been taken on file in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2275 of 2004. The Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) after considering the contents of the complaint and other connected records has found that a prima facie case is made out against the accused under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 2(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Against the order passed by the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul, the present revision case has been filed at the instance of the second accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has laconically contended that the revision petitioner arrayed as the second accused in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2275 of 2004 and since the second accused is not a Government servant Section 2(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is not applicable to him and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court), Dindigul is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also equally contended that the revision petitioner/second accused is also a Government servant and therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted under the said Section of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court), Dindigul, has rightly taken the complaint on file under Sections 304(A) of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 2(D) of the said Act and there is no compelling circumstances nor valid ground to make interference with the impugned order and altogether the present revision case deserves dismissal.

6. For analysing the rival submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into the decision of this Court reported in (2005)3 M.L.J. 406 (Santhosh Hospitals Private Limited represented by its Administrative officer, S.Chakravarthi Vs. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu represented by its Registrar, Chennai and others) wherein at paragraph 24 it is stated like thus;

"24. Thus, a perusal of the provisions of the Act and the forms annexed to the Regulations clearly indicate that the

Human Rights Act deals with violation of Human Rights by a public servant and not others. The petitioner is surely not a public servant and hence the Human Rights Act will not apply to him at all."

7. In the instant case, the second accused/revision petitioner is a private Doctor and he is not a Government servant. Even though it has been contended on the side of the respondent that he is a Government servant no clinching document has been forthcoming. Therefore, in view of the decision referred to earlier, it is pellucid that the revision petitioner/second accused would not come within the contour of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It has already been stated that against the revision petitioner/second accused the case in question has been taken on file under Section 2(D) of the said Act. Therefore, as per the dictum given in the decision referred to earlier, the order of the Court below with regard to the revision petitioner/second accused in respect of the Protection of Human Rights Act, is not legally sustainable and the same deserves to be dismissed.

8. In fine, this criminal revision case is allowed. The order dated 05.07.2005 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.2275 of 2004, against the revision petitioner/second accused in respect of Section 2(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is alone set aside. In other aspects, the order of the Court below is confirmed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5352 of 2005 is closed.

To:

1.The Human Rights Court

(Principal District Court),

Dindigul.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.