Dr. Krishnan Unni v. State of Kerala and Krishnankutty

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2008-06-12
Court Decision / Holding: Annexure A1 final report, charging the petitioner under Section 304A IPC read with Section 34 IPC, is quashed; the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The investigating agency may proceed with further inquiry in compliance with the Memorandum directives.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A1 final report quashed and proceedings in CC 61/2003 quashed; directions for conforming investigation under the memorandum.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Krishnan Unni, S/o Sankaranarayanan, Padmasree, Mundoor P.O., Palakkad

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Krishnankutty, S/o Karimban, Kallampambil House, Chalavara P.O.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P.K.Ravisankar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Jai George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dr. Krishnan Unni, a gynecologist at Government Hospital Ottappalam, is the second accused in Crime No. 299/2000. The prosecution filed a final report in Ottappalam, leading to C.C. No. 61/2003 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam. The case concerns a patient who delivered a child on 8 July 2002 and died subsequently en route to higher facilities; allegations of inadequate care and negligence in the labour room and post-delivery treatment are levelled against the petitioner under Section 304A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner moved this Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 3070 of 2005) seeking to quash Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings, contending that there had been no proper investigation and invoking the guidelines from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1. He also cited Memorandum No.6358/SS B4/87/Home dated 31.10.1989, which prescribes procedures for investigating complaints against doctors in government service. The learned Public Prosecutor acknowledged the absence of a fully completed investigation in light of Jacob Mathew’s guidelines, while pointing to ongoing inquiry. The court found that the investigation had not been conducted per the required standards and that the memorandum procedure had not been followed. Consequently, Annexure A1 final report and the charge sheet against the petitioner were quashed, and the Crl.M.C. was allowed, with liberty to the investigating agency to proceed in compliance with the memorandum’s directives.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 304A IPC read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 - guidelines on investigation of complaints against doctors in government service

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner urged quashing Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings, contending that no proper investigation had been conducted and that the matter should be disposed of in accordance with the Jacob Mathew guidelines. He relied on Memorandum No.6358/SS B4/87/Home dated 31.10.1989, which prescribes procedure for investigating complaints against doctors in government service, and noted that no such procedure had been followed. He also pointed to a related order in Crl.M.C.No.2375 of 2005 in which the co-accused’s proceedings were quashed for similar reasons.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation was expected to proceed and that quashing at this stage would impede inquiry; he argued that proper procedural steps were being observed and that the court should not prematurely terminate the process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab	(2005) 6 SCC 1	Positive	The court relied on the Jacob Mathew guidelines to assess investigation adequacy and quash the charge where investigation was not properly conducted.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE, 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3070 of 2005 ----------------------------CC.61/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- DR.KRISHNAN UNNI, S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, PADMASREE, MUNDOOR.P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR ## RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KARIMBAN, KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALAVARA.P.O. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 3070 of 2005 - C --------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2008** ## **O R D E R** Crime No.299 of 2000 of Ottappalam Police Station is registered for the offence under Section 304(A) read with Section 34 I.P.C. The Police after investigation filed a final report in which the petitioner is cited as second accused. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam took cognisance upon the above report and instituted C.C.No.61 of 2003. Now the petitioner seeks an order quashing Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.61 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Ottappalam. 2. The petitioner is a Gynaecologist working in the Government Hospital, Ottappalam against whom the case of the prosecution is that the wife of the second respondent- de facto complainant admitted to the Government Hospital, Ottappalm on 6.7.2002 for labour and she delivered a female child on 8.7.2002 and it was a normal delivery and the petitioner was the Doctor in the ## **Crl.M.C.No.3070 of 2005** ## **:-2-:** labour room. After some time, the de facto complainant was informed that his wife was on bleeding and the de facto complainant brought Dr.Sethulakshmi, the Doctor who was previously treating the wife of the de facto complainant and thereafter, Dr.Sethulakshmi and the petitioner attended the patient. The patient was administered with Glucose and Prostodin injection. But the bleeding could not be subsided. As there was no more facility in the hospital for clotting the blood, the patient was referred to a major hospital, by name Seventh Day Hospital. As the said hospital was not prepared to admit the patient, the patient was taken to Valluvanadu Hospital and while reaching the said hospital, the patient died. So according to the de facto complainant, his wife dead due to the carelessness of the Doctors. The petitioner denies all the allegations in the report and she prays that the proceedings against the petitioner in the court below may be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor. **Crl.M.C.No.3070 of 2005** ## **:-3-:** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during his argument reiterated the various averments taken in the Crl.M.C. and further pointed out that by judgment dated 5.10.2007 in Crl.M.C.No.2375 of 2005, this Court had already quashed the proceedings against the coaccused in the very same crime. I have gone through the above judgment. This Court, on ascertaining from the public Prosecutor that no investigation had been conducted in the case by the Investigating Officer, following the guidelines laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in **Jacob Mathew** v. **State of Punjab** [(2005) 6 SCC 1], quashed the charge sheet against the petitioner therein who is the first accused in the case of which the petitioner herein is the second accused. It is to be noted that the Government has issued regulations in the light of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the decision cited above as Memorandum No.6358/SS B4/87/Home dated 31.10.1989 providing the procedure in the matter of investigation of complaints against the Doctors in the Government service for acts of ## **Crl.M.C.No.3070 of 2005** ## **:-4-:** commission or omission in the medical treatment of patients in Government Hospitals and dispensaries. It is clear from the available records and on the basis of the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that no such procedure has been adopted. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner is also liable to be quashed. In the result, Annexure A1 final report, charge sheeting the petitioner for offence under Section 304A IPC read with Section 34 thereof, without prejudice to the investigating agency resorting to further investigation, in compliance with the direction in the circulamt memorandum aforesaid, is quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge** MBS/ ## **Crl.M.C.No.3070 of 2005** ## **:-5-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- ## **Crl.M.C.No.3070 of 2005** **:-6-:** J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2008 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3070 of 2005** **:-7-:**