Telangana High Court
Dr. Vijaya Anand Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Criminal Revision Case No.584 of 2024
Between:
Dr.Vijaya Anand Reddy
...Petitioner
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
...Respondent
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 09.04.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ Criminal Revision Case No.584 of 2024
% 09.04.2025
# Between:
Dr.Vijaya Anand Reddy
...Petitioner
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
...Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel
^ Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2004) 6 SCC 422
2
(2005) 6 SCC 1
3
(2005) 4 SCC 370
4
(2022) 15 SCC 720
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.584 OF 2024
ORDER:
1 Challenge in this criminal revision case is to the order dated
01.4.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.407 of 2023 in C.C.No.1304 of
2014 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the petition filed by
the petitioner / accused No.2 under Section 239 Cr.P.C, seeking
discharge, was dismissed.
2 The factual matrix was that basing on a complaint lodged by
the de facto complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 29.4.2013
alleging medical negligence in respect of the treatment resulting in
death of his mother on 12.11.2009, the police filed charge sheet
against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
418, 420, 304(A) and 120(B) of IPC. Seeking to discharge him
from the said offences, the petitioner filed petition under Section
239 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, contending that there
was no prima facie case against the petitioner / A.2, there was
inordinate delay in filing the complaint; that the ingredients of the
offences alleged against him do not attract to the facts and
circumstances of the case against the petitioner.
4
3 The learned trial Court overruled the contentions raised by
the petitioner / A.2 holding that Section 473 Cr.P.C has overriding
effect on Section 468 Cr.P.C in applying the rule of limitation in
filing the complaint and that whether the petitioner has committed
the offences alleged against him will come to light only upon
conducting a full fledged trial and accordingly dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioner. The learned trial Court further
observed that at the stage of consideration of an application for
discharge, the Court has to proceed with the assumption that the
material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate
the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging
from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of
the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence alleged and
also on the ground that the court has already taken cognizance of
the alleged offences and numbered the charge sheet. As stated
supra, challenging the said order of dismissal dated 01.4.2024, the
petitioner filed the present criminal revision case under Section
397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
4 Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner would submit that mere taking cognizance of the
offences would not create any bar in deciding the application
5
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the complaint
lodged by the de facto complainant is woefully barred by limitation
and as such the petitioner ought to have been discharged from the
alleged offences. He further submitted that there is no deficiency
of any service on the part of the petitioner so as to implicate him
in the crime and there is no allegation as to how the services of
the petitioner are deficient to rope him in the offences and that
the charge sheet also does not disclose any role of the petitioner
as such continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is
abuse of process of law. It is his predominant contention that the
trial Court has not given reasons as to how the alleged offences
get attracted in the absence of any allegation against the
petitioner, leave alone any material. In support of his
contentions, the learned senior counsel relied on the following
judgments: 1) Dr.Suresh Gupta vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 1, 2)
Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punja2, 3) Common order dated
13.7.2021 passed by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.4586 and 8621
of 2014.
5 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that since the trial Court has already taken cognizance
1
(2004) 6 SCC 422
2
(2005) 6 SCC 1
6
of the offences and numbered the charge sheet, and since the
allegations levelled against the petitioner would show prima facie
case, the order under revision does not call for interference of this
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
6 Basing on the above pleadings and contentions advanced on
either side, the point that would arise for consideration in this
revision case is whether or not the petitioner is entitled for
discharge from the alleged offences.
7 It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is
not competent person to conduct the investigations into the
disease with which the mother of the de-facto complainant was
ailing. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner has taken any amount from the de-facto complainant
for attending his mother at least to justify that the petitioner
herein is not competent to deal with the ailments or diseases of
the mother of the de facto complainant.
8 No doubt, Section 473 of Cr.P.C has an overriding effect on
Section 468 Cr.P.C while dealing with the limitation for filing of
complaints which reads as under:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing
provisions of this Chapter, any Court may make cognizance of an
offence after the expiry of the period of limitations, if it is
7
satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that
the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to
do in the interests of justice.
9 From a cursory reading of Section 473 Cr.P.C. it is manifest
that the court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry
of the period of limitations, if it is satisfied on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly
explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of
justice. But the section did not say that the Court shall or must
take cognizance in the given circumstances even beyond the
period of limitation. It is for the Court to satisfy itself that the
allegations made in the complaint warrant taking cognizance of
the offences beyond period of limitation. There is no plausible
explanation on the part of the prosecution for filing the
complaint beyond the period of limitation.
10 In the instant case, the petitioner has not explained any
reason for filing the complaint at such a belated stage nor the
Court below has also given any reason as to how it justified in
taking cognizance of the offences beyond period of limitation
inasmuch as the complaint was filed four years after the death of
the mother of the de facto complainant, where the period of
limitation prescribed was only three years for an offence under
Section 304-A of IPC.
8
11 Coming to the Sections of law with which the petitioner
was charged, primarily the petitioner was charged under Section
418 IPC which defines that whoever cheats with the knowledge
that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose
interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was
bound either by law, or by legal contract, to protect, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. In
the instant case, no prudent man can imagine or presume that no
doctor while treating a patient would entertain an idea of
causing wrongful loss to the patient or to his / her relatives. So,
the charge under Section 418 IPC will not have any applicability
to the facts of the case.
12 Further, the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC also do not
attract to the facts and circumstances of the present case
because there is no dishonest inducement of the de facto
complainant to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy
the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is
signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security. In order to establish the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution must establish that the accused has such an evil
intention of cheating the complainant right from the beginning.
9
There is no whisper in the case of the prosecution with regard to
the element of cheating on the part of the petitioner right from
the day when the mother of the de facto complainant was
admitted in the hospital for treatment. Even according to the
prosecution, the petitioner has referred the case to the first
accused in the case after conducting some tests upon her. So
mere referral does not constitute any offence.
13 Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that because
of the treatment given by the petitioner the mother of the de-
facto complainant died so as to attract the offence under Section
304-A IPC which attracts the ingredients of rash and negligent act
on the part of the accused. The entire record shows that the
petitioner has only suggested some tests to be done for
determination of the disease with which the mother of the de-
facto complainant was actually suffering. So Section 304-A of IPC
also will not have any applicability to the facts of the case.
14 Further, the ingredients of Section 120(B) of IPC also do not
attract to the facts of the present case.
15 So from an overall appreciation of the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the applicability of the
sections of law with which the petitioner was charged, I am of
10
the considered view that none of the ingredients of the sections
of law alleged against the petitioner would warrant taking
cognizance of offence against the petitioner.
16 In Dr.Suresh Gupta (1 supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as follows:
“The legal position is almost firmly established that where
a patient dies due to the negligent medical treatment of the doctor,
the doctor can be made liable in civil law for paying compensation
and damages in tort and at the same time, if the degree of
negligence is so gross and his act was so reckless as to endanger
the life of the patient, he would also be made criminally liable for
offence under Section 304-A IPC”
17 If the above decision is applied to the case on hand, if
there is such a gross negligence on the part of the petitioner,
then only the petitioner is liable for criminal prosecution
otherwise, the petitioner can be made liable in civil law for
paying compensation and damages. In the instant case the
petitioner has only subjected the mother of the de-facto
complainant to some clinical tests and thereafter he referred her
to the first accused. So the petitioner cannot be fastened with
criminal liability. Moreover, as seen from the record, the de-
facto complainant has already knocked the doors of the A.P.State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, where
the petitioner was directed to pay compensation to the de-facto
11
complainant. So the grievance of the de-facto complainant was
already redressed to that extent.
18 The findings of a consumer disputes redressal forum are not
binding on criminal courts because consumer and criminal law
have distinct domains. Consumer commissions have the authority
to resolve consumer disputes without interfering with criminal
law. Consumer commissions can resolve complaints about
defective goods, unfair trade practices, deficient services, and
overcharging and can impose penalties or take corrective actions
against service providers or traders found guilty, but can’t decide
cases involving disputed facts, tortious acts, or criminality like
fraud or cheating. Further, the proceedings before the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission are not conducted in accordance
with the provisions of CPC. It is well settled that civil cases are
decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, while in
criminal cases, the entire burden lies on the prosecution and
proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. Giving rest to
the issue, a constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah 3 held as under:
32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made
to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts,
it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in3
(2005) 4 SCC 370
12
the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided
on the basis of preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal
case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond
reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory
provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one
proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as
both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence
adduced therein. While examining a similar contention in an
appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint Under
Section 476 of the old Code, the following observations made by a
Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras
[MANU/SC/0055/1954 : 1954 SCR 1144 : AIR 1954 SC 397: 1954 Cri
LJ 1019] give a complete answer to the problem posed: (AIR p.
399, paras 15-16)
15. As between the civil and the criminal
proceedings, we are of the opinion that the criminal
matters should be given precedence. There is some
difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this
point. No hard-and-fast Rule can be laid down but we do
not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in
the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration.
The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly
refrains from making the decision of one court binding on
the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited
purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant
consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a
civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable
that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody
concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public
interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and
sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events
are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent
should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and
impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to
let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.
This, however, is not a hard-and-fast rule. Special
considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some
other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case
or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to
make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a
prosecution ordered Under Section 476. But in this case we are of
the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal
proceedings have finished.
(Emphasis Supplied)
13
19 In that view of the matter, since the proceedings before
the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot be equated
with that of the proceedings before the civil court, the findings
of the said Commission would not have any bearing or
applicability to the case on hand.
20 In Jacob Mathew case (2 supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in identical circumstances held as follows:
54. Reverting back to the facts of the case before us, we
are satisfied that all the averments made in the complaint, even
if held to be proved, do not make out a case of criminal rashness
or negligence on the part of the accused appellant. It is not the
case of the complainant that the accused-appellant was not a
doctor qualified to treat the patient whom he agreed to treat. It
is a case of non-availability of oxygen cylinder either because of
the hospital having failed to keep available a gas cylinder or
because of the gas cylinder being found empty. Then, probably
the hospital may be liable in civil law (or may not be — we
express no opinion thereon) but the accused appellant cannot be
proceeded against under Section 304A IPC on the parameters of
Bolam’s test.
21 In Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 4 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering
the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The
Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out
whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court
has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence
and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in
the case and so on. [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
{(1979) 3 SCC 4}. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to
order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be.
4
(2022) 15 SCC 720
14
22 For all the above reasons, I find force in the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the order
dated 01.4.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.407 of 2023 in C.C.No.1304
of 2014 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the
criminal revision case is allowed. The petitioner is discharged from
the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 304(A) and
120(B) of IPC in C.C.No.1304 of 2014 passed by the learned III
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. As a sequel,
miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dt: 09.04.2025
Kvsn
L.R.copy be marked
B/o Kvsn