9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order dated 28.7.2011. 2. Registration of FIR on the complaint dated 12.10.2010. 3. Transfer of investigation to an independent agency. 4. Keeping the complaint No. 780/10 in abeyance before the Disciplinary Committee. 5. Locus standi of the applicants/interveners. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of the order dated 28.7.2011 The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, which directed the Delhi Medical Council to expedite the proceedings and file its opinion regarding medical negligence. The court held that even if this part of the impugned order is set aside, it would not bring any relief to the petitioner because the earlier order directing the constitution of a medical Board by the Delhi Medical Council for obtaining a medical opinion still remains on record. The court emphasized the necessity of obtaining a fresh opinion from the Board duly constituted by the Delhi Medical Council, as per the guidelines laid down in Jacob Mathew's case. Issue 2: Registration of FIR on the complaint dated 12.10.2010 The petitioner sought a direction to register an FIR based on her complaint dated 12.10.2010. The court referred to authoritative judgments stating that if a person is aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR, the appropriate remedy is to approach the SP or DCP u/S 154(3) Cr.P.C. or file a complaint u/S 200 Cr.P.C. The court held that a direction to register an FIR cannot be issued by the High Court in such cases, and thus, this prayer was not maintainable. Issue 3: Transfer of investigation to an independent agency The petitioner sought to transfer the investigation to an independent agency. The court held that since the prayer for registration of an FIR was not maintainable, there was no question of transferring the investigation. Therefore, this prayer was also not maintainable. Issue 4: Keeping the complaint No. 780/10 in abeyance before the Disciplinary Committee The petitioner sought a direction to keep her complaint pending before the Disciplinary Committee in abeyance. The court found that this issue was not encompassed before the learned Magistrate and hence could not be the basis of challenge before the High Court. The court noted the petitioner's multiple legal actions against the doctors and emphasized that the petitioner's actions appeared to be a witch hunt against the doctors. Issue 5: Locus standi of the applicants/interveners The petitioner challenged the locus standi of the applicants/interveners. The court held that in cases where the complainant approaches the High Court u/S 482 Cr.P.C. seeking adverse orders against the respondent/accused, it is appropriate to give a right of hearing to the accused. The court noted that the applicants/interveners were within their rights to assist the court in presenting a clearer picture, especially in light of the guidelines laid down in Jacob Mathew's case for prosecuting medical professionals. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order dated 28.7.2011, and permitted the Delhi Medical Council to complete the process of obtaining and approving the medical opinion from the Board. The court emphasized that the learned Magistrate should act in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.
|
