IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.32443 OF 2015(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MR KARTHIK AGED 33 YEARS, S/O S.SESHADRI NO.11/3, CAR STREET, 1ST CROSS, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560008 2. MRS JAYASHREE G S W/O MR RAJRENDRA PRASAD G S AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.728, KRISHNA NADI ROAD, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560026 3. MR S SESHADRI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE S SUNDARAM NO.11/3, CAR STREET, 1ST CROSS, ULSOOR, BENGALURU 560008 4. MRS MEERA W/O S SESHADRI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.11/3, CAR STREET, 1ST CROSS, ULSOOR, BENGALURU 560008 5. MISS SHARANYA D/O RAJENDRA PRASAD G S AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS KRISHNA NADI ROAD, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560026.
(BY SRI: KARTHIK S, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO, SHANKAPURA POLICE STATION, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 004 2. DR. R. RAJKUMAR (MED. DIR) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RANGADORE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARPURAM, BENGALURU-44 3. K. RAVI S/O LATE KUMAR, NO.388, 4TH CROSS, JANATA COLONY, HALEGUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI: T.K.VISHWAJITH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO IN VIEW OF THE PAYMENT OF ALL OUTSTANDING DUES TO THE HOSPITAL, WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONRS PRAY FOR JUDGEMENT AND DECREE:-
1.QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.77/2014 (SUBMITTED IN ANNX- A) IN THE FILE OF SHANKARAPURA POLICE STATION FILED IN 24TH ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU, RELATED TO ALLEGED NON-PAYMENT OF BILLS BY THE PETITIONERS.
2.TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER KARTHIK S FROM THE FIR IN CRIME NO.77/2014 (SUBMITTED IN ANNX-A) SINCE HE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE VIOLENCE CREATED BY THE CERTAIN MR. RAVI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are accused of committing violence against Medicare Service Personnel and damage to property of Medicare Service Institution, an offence punishable under section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Service Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2009 and for the offences punishable under sections 427, 143 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners have sought to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.6163/2016 pending on the file of XXIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the petitioners – parties-in-person and the learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the petition are as follows:-
Petitioners had taken one Rajendra Prasad G.S. – father- in-law of petitioner No.1 for treatment in Rangadore Memorial Hospital at Shankarapuram. He was transferred to Jayadeva Hospital on 04.11.2014. After initial treatment in Jayadeva Hospital, he was again referred back to Rangadore Hospital. Accordingly, the petitioners herein took the patient in an ambulance to Rangadore Hospital at about 3.00 p.m. on 06.11.2014. According to the prosecution, the patient was refused admission in the hospital and hence, the petitioners herein raised a commotion outside the hospital and during the occurrence assaulted one of the security staff and also damaged the glass of the operation theatre by throwing a stone.
4. Based on the complaint lodged by one Dr.R.Rajkumar, Medical Director of the said hospital, a case was registered against accused No.1 Karthik and others in Crime No.77/2014 under sections 427, 143, 323 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Service Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2009 (for short “Act”). After investigation, charge-sheet has been laid against six accused persons for the above offences.
5. Petitioner No.1 – party-in-person submits that the entire prosecution is malicious and a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners herein against the medicare staff of Rangadore Hospital in Crime No.73/2014. Based on this complaint, investigation is conducted and a charge-sheet is laid against the PRO of the said hospital Sri.Aakash and others and the matter is pending in C.C.No.18920/2015. He further submits that the hospital authorities filed another complaint against Rajendra Prasad – the patient who was treated by the hospital for non-payment of hospital bills, in Crime No.74/2014. The said compliant has been quashed by this Court in W.P.Nos.35045-47/2015 vide order dated 21.03.2016 as the complaint was withdrawn by the hospital. It is in this backdrop, the instant complaint has been filed without there being any truth or substance in the allegations made against the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 – party-in-person further submits that they had taken the patient to the hospital pursuant to the reference given by Jayadeva Hospital. They did not visit the hospital to create any commotion. There was no premeditation or any planning to cause damage to the hospital property. They were denied entry into the hospital and at that time, during commotion, some outsiders pelted stone at the hospital gate. The miscreant was a total stranger and was not related to the petitioners or to the patient. He has been identified and is shown as accused No.6 in the charge-sheet in C.C.No.6163/2016. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, charge-sheet is laid by fabricating false evidence and thus contending that the prosecution initiated against petitioners is malicious and vexatious, petitioners have sought to quash the same in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 – State has argued in support of the impugned charge-sheet and would submit that the materials collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie make out the offences alleged against the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have not made out any ground to quash the proceedings. Investigation is foolproof. Petitioners procured assistance of accused No.6 and in furtherance of their common object, caused damage to the hospital property. The said offence falls within the provisions of section 3 of the Act punishable under section 4 thereof. Further the petitioners in furtherance of their common object assaulted the hospital staff and necessary evidence in support of these charges has been collected by the Investigating Agency and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The petitioners are charged for the offence under section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Service Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2009. Section 4 of the Act is a penal provision which provides for punishment with imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine which may extend to Rs.50,000/-. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act reads as under:-
3. Prohibition of Violence.- Any violence against medicare service personnel or damage to the property in a medicare service institution is prohibited.
“Violence” is defined in section 2(d) of the Act as under:-
“2(d) ‘Violence’ means activities of causing any harm, injury or endangering the life or intimidation, obstruction or hindrance to any medicare service personnel in discharge of duty in the medicare service institution or damage to property in medicare service institution.”
9. The specific case of the prosecution is that during the occurrence, petitioners herein obstructed the medicare service personnel and assaulted the security supervisor and also caused damage to the window glass of operation theatre. In the charge-sheet, it is stated that the act of throwing the stone was done by accused No.6. Accused No.6 is not before the court. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegation in the charge-sheet is that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted one of the staff. The injured is shown as CW.7 – Security Supervisor. As per the definition of the term “violence”, in order to constitute such an offence, the violence should have been caused to any medicare service personnel in discharge of duty in the medicare service institution. The Security Supervisor appointed to man the security does not fall within sub-section (d) of section 2 of the Act. As a result, the allegation made in the complaint, even if accepted as true, does not render the present petitioners liable for prosecution under the provisions of the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Service Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2009. According to the prosecution, the damage to the property was caused by accused No.6; ‘Violence’ has not been committed by the petitioners herein against any personnel engaged in the medicare service or to any person in discharge of duty in the hospital or damage to the property in medicare service institution. As such, the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act against the petitioners herein is wholly untenable.
10. Coming to the offence charged against the petitioners under the provisions of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it may be apt to refer to the complaint lodged with regard to the incident at the earliest instance. The said complaint was lodged by Dr.Rajkumar.R. A reading of the complaint indicates that he was not an eyewitness to the incident. According to the complainant, on 6.11.2014 at 3.00 p.m., the petitioners herein had brought the patient to their hospital and since he was refused admission, the petitioners herein formed into an unlawful assembly and tried to push the gate and in the process, assaulted hospital staff and obstructed the Doctors on duty. Further it is stated that during the occurrence, someone threw stone at the operation theatre. These averments, on the face of it, indicate that the act of throwing stone was not done by the present petitioners. Further, it is stated that the petitioners herein tried to push the gate and tried to gain entry into the hospital which means that the petitioners had not gained entry into the hospital. Under the said circumstances, there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioners either to obstruct the Doctors on duty or to assault the medicare staff on duty as stated in the FIR. This itself indicates that the allegations made in the complaint are wholly baseless. Charge-sheet is laid on a total different set of facts. Contrary to the allegations made in the FIR, in the charge-sheet (Annexure-‘K’), it is stated that at about 2.00 p.m., all the accused persons had brought the patient to the hospital and tried to gain entry into the hospital and when the hospital staff asked them not to create commotion, all the petitioners pushed the gate and entered the hospital and assaulted CW.7. This version is inconsistent with the allegations made in the FIR. If these allegations are considered in the backdrop of the antecedent events that had taken place in the hospital, it is evident that the instant complaint has been lodged by the hospital authorities only as a sequel or counterblast to the complaint already lodged by the petitioners against the hospital staff.
11. It is a matter of record that petitioners themselves had initiated criminal action against one of the Doctors of the said hospital by lodging a complaint in Crime No.73/2014. The said complaint was lodged on 25.10.2014. According to the complainant (petitioner No.2), the said incident occurred when the complainant and her son-in-law (petitioner No.1) objected to issuing wrong bills which prompted the PRO of the Hospital abusing petitioner No.1 in foul language. It is also borne on record that after investigation, charge-sheet is laid against one of the medicare staff of the hospital and the same is pending in CC.No.18920/2015. It is also borne on record that the hospital authorities had filed another complaint against the petitioners herein in Crime No.74/2014 alleging that the petitioners have not paid the medical bills. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein along with another filed W.P.Nos.35045-47/2015 seeking quashing of the said complaint. The complaint was withdrawn by the hospital authorities and ultimately the writ petition came to be dismissed on that ground. These events indicate that out of spite and to wreak vengeance against the petitioners, false accusations have been made against them. The facts discussed above on the face of it, indicate that the occurrence as stated by the complainant has not taken place. The allegations made in the complaint are inconsistent with the substance of accusations found in the charge-sheet. These allegations, even if accepted as true, do not constitute any of the offences under the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Service Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2009.
12. Insofar as offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the said offence is directed only against accused No.6. There is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioners herein had brought the said person to commit the alleged offence in furtherance of common object. On the other hand, material on record indicate that the petitioners herein had come directly from Jayadeva Hospital in an ambulance pursuant to the reference made by the Jayadeva Hospital to get the patient admitted in the hospital. It could not have been the contemplation of the petitioners that they would be denied admission into the hospital so as to procure the assistance of the accused No.6. It is solely on account of denial of entry into the hospital, some commotion might have taken place. But the materials on record clearly indicate that the incident has not taken place as alleged in the charge-sheet. Charge-sheet itself being contrary to the initial version contained in the FIR and the said allegations having been made in the backdrop of previous litigation instituted by the petitioners, same amounts to vengeful and vindictive action on the part of the respondent – hospital authorities and hence, for all the above reasons, proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.6163/2016 (Crime No.77/2014 of Shankarapura Police Station) pending on the file of XXIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru are quashed only insofar as petitioners herein namely accused Nos.1 to 5 are concerned. The proceedings in C.C.No.6163/2016 (Crime No.77/2014 of Shankarapura Police Station) pending in XXIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru shall continue against accused No.6 in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.8/2016 does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss/mn/-