Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10838 of 2008 ===================================================== Dr. Wu Hoomg Chhang (Dr. W.H. Chhang), son of Wu Pin Chhang, residing at Meghnad Sharni, Pradhannagar, Silliguri, Police Station- Pradhannagar, District-Darjeeling, West Bengal, Pin Code-734003. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Kailash Prasad Keshri, son of Makuni Prasad Keshri, resident of Mohalla-Keshri Tola, Mohalla-Madhubani, Police Station-K. Hat, P.O. Purnea, District-Purnea. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Gyanand Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.N. Pandit, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER --------------- 8 15-02-2012 The petitioner has filed this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the order dated 21.11.2007 passed in C.A. No.465 of 2007 by the court of Sri R.P. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Purnea, summoning the accused-petitioner, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] against him. 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Kailash Prasad Keshri, filed the complaint petition, numbered as C.A. No.465 of 2007, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, alleging therein that on 8.3.2007 the date was fixed in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10838 of 2008 (8) dt.15-02-2012 2 / 7 2 Consumer Case No.46 of 2006 pending before the Consumer Forum, Purnea, for submitting the list of the witnesses and the evidence of his daughter, Rubi Keshri, on affidavit. He reached Purnea, in time with his counsel and submitted the list of the witnesses and the evidence of her daughter, Rubi Keshri, on affidavit at 2.00 P.M. before the Consumer Forum. In that course, he came to know through his counsel that the accused-petitioner had not filed his attendance and he was also not physically present in the Court. It has further been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that when on 8.3.2007 at about 4.00 P.M., he alongwith Pradip Yadav, Advocate’s Clerk, was taking the ‘Sattu’ in the campus of the court of the S.D.O., a black coloured Scorpio vehicle reached near him and when the gate of the vehicle was being opened then he noticed that the petitioner was sitting in the vehicle and called him. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 went near the vehicle and asked him politely as to why he was not in attendance in the consumer case on which the petitioner started abusing him in filthy language saying to withdraw the complaint case filed in the Consumer Forum on which the opposite party no.2 replied that due to negligent treatment and operation, his daughter, Rubi Keshri, has suffered irreparable loss, so he has filed the said case demanding the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and he will wait Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10838 of 2008 (8) dt.15-02-2012 3 / 7 3 the decision of the Consumer Forum. It is further alleged by the opposite party no.2 that at that time 4-5 musclemen looking like Bengali got down from the vehicle with rifle in their hands, they caught hold of collar and abused him by causing assault. Thereafter, on the order of the accused-petitioner, his musclemen snatched Rs.500/- from his pocket. It is also stated by the opposite party no.2 that the occurrence spread all over the campus of the S.D.O. Court. At that time, he could not notice the registration number of the Scorpio vehicle as he was perplexed. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate summoned the accused- petitioner, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] through the impugned order dated 21.11.2007, which is impugned in this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submission that the petitioner is a qualified Neuro Surgeon and he has done M.S.M.Ch. (Neo Surgery) from P.G.I. Chandigarh and has also received training in Neuro Endoscope Surgery from Mainz, Germany. The petitioner is also the Chairman and Director of the North Bengal Neuro Centre, Private Limited, which is a Super Specialty Hospital in the field of Neuro Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10838 of 2008 (8) dt.15-02-2012 4 / 7 4 Surgery. In fact, Rubi Keshri, the daughter of the opposite party no.2 was admitted in North Bengal Neuro Centre Private Limited, Pradhan Nagar, Silliguri, District-Darjeeling for treatment under the petitioner on 16.6.2004 with a complaint of Pulmonary Kocks and low back pain since six months, Para paresis since 10 days and with a history of convulsions and other complications. After investigation and M.R.I. Scanning of the Doorslumbar spine, it was diagnosed to be a case of Pulmonary Kocks with caries spine L4/L5 with convulsions and in this position Laminectory was necessary. Accordingly, Rubi Keshri, daughter of the opposite party no.2 was admitted on 18.4.2004 and was operated upon after execution of risk bond by the opposite party no.2 and after operation she was kept in the Special Post Operative Care upto 21.6.2004 and was discharged on 3.7.2004 with advised to take anti-tuberculosis drugs and other supportive medicines as she was suffering from tuberculosis. Rubi Kumari was readmitted in the hospital of the petitioner for further treatement as she had the problem of vomiting. She was again treated under the petitioner from 30.7.2004 to 16.8.2004. The opposite party no.2 and his relation requested the petitioner on 16.8.2004 to refer Rubi Keshri to Dr. B.S. Sharma, Department of Neoro Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi and, accordingly, she was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10838 of 2008 (8) dt.15-02-2012 5 / 7

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.