BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02/01/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Crl.R.C.(MD)No.610 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5352 of 2005 Dr.Vignesh . . . Petitioner Vs. J.Meena . . . Respondent This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.07.2005, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2275 of 2004, by the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian ^For respondent : Mr.D.Selvaraj :ORDER
The criminal revision petitioner has challenged the order dated
05.07.2005, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2275 of 2004, by the Human Rights Court
(Principal District Court) Dindigul.
2. The respondent herein as complainant has filed a private complaint
under Sections 190 & 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the file of the
Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) Dindigul, wherein the present
revision petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused. It is stated in the
complaint that prior to two years the complainant has married the deceased
Jayakumar. On 08.07.2004 at about 09.00 P.M. The said Jayakumar has met with an
accident and sustained fatal injuries and subsequently, he has been taken to the
Government Hospital, Dindigul. The first accused has referred the deceased to
one Pandiyammal Scan Centre and accordingly, the same has been done. The first
accused has demanded Rs.15,000/- for doing operation. The second accused has
also demanded the same. The complainant has not been able to meet the demands
of the accused 1 & 2 and for the same reason, the accused 1 & 2 have not given
treatment to the deceased and due to their failure the deceased had passed away.
Therefore, both the accused had committed offences under Sections 304(II) and
304(A) of Indian Penal Code.
3. The complaint has been taken on file in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No.2275 of 2004. The Human Rights Court (Principal District Court) after
considering the contents of the complaint and other connected records has found
that a prima facie case is made out against the accused under Section 304(A) of
Indian Penal Code r/w Section 2(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Against the order passed by the Human Rights Court (Principal District Court)
Dindigul, the present revision case has been filed at the instance of the second
accused.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has
laconically contended that the revision petitioner arrayed as the second accused
in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2275 of 2004 and since the second accused
is not a Government servant Section 2(D) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993 is not applicable to him and therefore, the impugned order passed by the
Human Rights Court (Principal District Court), Dindigul is liable to be set
aside.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also
equally contended that the revision petitioner/second accused is also a
Government servant and therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted under the said
Section of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Human Rights Court
(Principal District Court), Dindigul, has rightly taken the complaint on file
under Sections 304(A) of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 2(D) of the said Act and
there is no compelling circumstances nor valid ground to make interference with
the impugned order and altogether the present revision case deserves dismissal.
6. For analysing the rival submissions made by either counsel, the Court
has to look into the decision of this Court reported in (2005)3 M.L.J. 406
(Santhosh Hospitals Private Limited represented by its Administrative officer,
S.Chakravarthi Vs. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu represented by
its Registrar, Chennai and others) wherein at paragraph 24 it is stated like
thus;
“24. Thus, a perusal of the provisions of the Act and the forms annexed to
the Regulations clearly indicate that the
Human Rights Act deals with violation of Human Rights by a public servant and
not others. The petitioner is surely not a public servant and hence the Human
Rights Act will not apply to him at all.”
7. In the instant case, the second accused/revision petitioner is a
private Doctor and he is not a Government servant. Even though it has been
contended on the side of the respondent that he is a Government servant no
clinching document has been forthcoming. Therefore, in view of the decision
referred to earlier, it is pellucid that the revision petitioner/second accused
would not come within the contour of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
It has already been stated that against the revision petitioner/second accused
the case in question has been taken on file under Section 2(D) of the said Act.
Therefore, as per the dictum given in the decision referred to earlier, the
order of the Court below with regard to the revision petitioner/second accused
in respect of the Protection of Human Rights Act, is not legally sustainable and
the same deserves to be dismissed.
8. In fine, this criminal revision case is allowed. The order dated
05.07.2005 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.2275 of 2004, against
the revision petitioner/second accused in respect of Section 2(D) of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is alone set aside. In other aspects, the
order of the Court below is confirmed. Consequently, connected
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5352 of 2005 is closed.
To:
1.The Human Rights Court
(Principal District Court),
Dindigul.