Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr. Viveka Nand Gupta & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14421 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20109 (28 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


 (Court no. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No. 14421 of 2006

1. Dr. Viveka Nand Gupta son of Sri Ram Sahai Gupta

R/o Viveka Nand Hospital, Balkeshwar,

P.S. New Agra, City and District Agra.

2. Saroj wife of late Indresh Kumar

R/o  Saraswati Nagar, Balkeshwar, Police Station New Agra City

And District Agra.


3. Sachin son of Sri Raj Kumr Bhardwaj

R/o B- 956, Tans Yamuna Colony, P.S. Etmaddaula,

District Agra.

4. Ashok son of Dhram Pal Singh

R/o Village Adampur, P.S. Tappal,

District Aligarh ......... Accused-applicants.


1. State of U.P.

2. Laxman Singh son of Shyam Babu,

Resident of Chhitrai, Police Station Pachaukhara,

District Firozabad. ........ Opp.Parties.


Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. The applicants Dr. Vivekanand Gupta and 3 others have been charge-sheeted  for an offence under Sections 304-A and 201 Indian Penal Code by police of  Police Station New Agra, District Agra and a  Criminal Case No. 975 of 2006  is pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.  They have, therefore, come up here under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for termination of these criminal proceedings.

2. The allegation  is that  one Smt. Sunita was operated upon in the night of 25.6.2005 in Vivekanand Hospital, Agra  and gave  birth to a male child. Hospital belonged to applicant No.1. About 3 O'clock in the night, the lady nurse,Opp.Party No. 2 Saroj  took away the  child around 3 O'clock  when his mother  lying asleep. On making a hue and cry by the informant, father-in-law  of Smt. Sunita  some people in the morning informed the informant  that a dog was eating upon the scalp  of a child. The informant went to the spot and found the scalp  lying. Meanwhile, the applicant no.1 is said to have arrived and on his instruction, the applicant Nos. 3 & 4 took away and threw the scalp  somewhere. The allegation is that applicant no.1 managed a  letter from the informant that the informant was taking along  his daughter-in-law  to some other hospital  and sent them away by his car  to Dainik Hospital, Tundla.

3. The contention from the side of the applicant is that the accused have been falsely implicated because there was a dispute about payment of hospital charges. The informant himself left the hospital for the reasons which can be seen from his own letter , which was given by him  to the hospital management, while leaving  the hospital. The English translation of the letter reads as follows:-

" My patient Sunita was carrying a child of seven and half month in her womb whose arm was coming out side. We had, therefore, got her operated in emergency  and after great efforts  of the child specialist, the child was able to breath. We were advised to  keep the child on machine  we did not agree  and the child could not be saved. Therefore, we are taking our patient back  home. We have no complaint against the hospital".

4. This is a matter, which will have to be determined by the Court after evidence led in the case, and the court will decide whether the prosecution allegations are false, and that the accused have been implicated about any dispute  for hospital fee. This is not a matter which could be considered in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because this is a question of fact, which will require evidence.

5. The petition is, therefore, misconceived and is accordingly rejected.

6. The counsel for the applicants has made an oral request that since the petition is being dismissed, the court may be directed to release the accused on Personal Bond. No specific reason has been assigned  as to why this Court should go out of the way, and grant a special concession, for being released, on Personal Bond.

7. Any such  direction would amount to  unwarranted interference  in the discretion of the Magistrate. It is solely for the Trial Court to decide, as to how, or on what conditions, if at all, the accused have to be released.  It would be out of place for this Court to issue any direction in this regard. The Magistrate will, however, consider, the bail application of the accused-applicants the same day on which it is presented.

Dt:  28.11.2006

14417/06 n.u.


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


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 |

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