High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dr. Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 January, 2009
Criminal Misc. No. M-7883 of 2008                                  1




     In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                   Criminal Misc. No. M-7883 of 2008

                      Date of Decision: 21.1.2009


Dr. Gurdeep Singh
                                                           ...Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Haryana and Another
                                                       ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

           Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate
           General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

           Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate
           for respondent No.2.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Jacob Mathew v.

State of Punjab and Another 2005(3) Recent Criminal Reports 836.

In paras 51 to 55 of the said judgment, the Court has laid a test and

guidelines to find whether a medical profession is to be prosecuted or

not? or whether any medical negligence can be attributed to concerned

Surgeon?

It has been submitted by Mr. S.S. Mor, learned Senior Deputy

Advocate, General, Haryana, that in the present case report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted.
Criminal Misc. No. M-7883 of 2008 2

Parties are relegated to the trial Court to urge at the time of

framing of charge whether in consonance with the mandate of law laid

in Jacob Mathew’s case (supra), charge can be framed or not.

Needless to say that in case the charge is framed, petitioner will be at

liberty to avail his remedy to assail the charge before the revisional

Court.

Petitioner is stated to be a Doctor, therefore, taking into

consideration the fact that he has to attend his patients, his personal

appearance before the trial Court is exempted subject to filing an

undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required and

the evidence recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel

shall be binding upon him. Trial Court may also specify any other

condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner. On the

furnishing of undertaking, the personal appearance of petitioner shall

stand exempted.

With the observations made above, the present petition is

disposed off.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
January 21, 2009
“DK”