THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.4659 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.214 of 2008 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners are A1 and A2 and the first respondent is the defacto-complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the calendar case. 3. Before going into merits of the case, it is necessary to note the brief facts of the prosecution case. 4. A1 and A2 are the Principal and Zonal In-charge of Narayana Junior College, Tarnaka branch, Hyderabad. The defacto complainant’s daughter T.Sravanthi (late) (for short ‘the deceased’) was studying Intermediate II year MPC group in that college. On 18.12.2007 at 7.30 a.m. the said daughter of the defacto complainant along his son T.Dharani Kumari left home to attend the college. At about 1 p.m. the deceased informed one K.Monika, her classmate that she was suffering from pains on her left shoulder and joints, by reason of which, K.Monika advised the deceased to swing her hands two or three times and accordingly the deceased acted and later both of them involved in their studies in the class. At about 5.45 p.m. Smt.Rani who was incharge of the class, went to the class and informed that one lecturer was coming for taking motivation class from 6 p.m. onwards. Accordingly at about 6 p.m. the motivation lecturer entered the classroom and started teaching the class, but meanwhile, the deceased fell down on the laps of K.Monika. Immediately, the lecturer went outside the class and informed the class incharge Smt.Rani about it, as a result of which, Smt.Rani re-entered the classroom and then the deceased was brought outside the classroom with the help of K.Monika and so also one J.Dikshetha and one M.Rajitha, students and laid the deceased on a bench and immediately the class incharge Rani went to the Principal’s room and informed about what happened, but neither the Principal of the College nor the Zonal Incharge of it had taken any steps consequently. However, immediately, K.Monika, the class incharge Smt.Rani, J.Dikshetha and M.Rajitha took the deceased by Car to Apollo Clinic for treatment, but there one Dr.Mrinal examined the deceased and informed that she was brought dead. On a report given by the defacto complainant, the case was registered in Crime No.317 of 2007 on the file of O.U. Police Station under Section 3O4 IPC against the accused. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 and A2 that absolutely there is no material to the effect that before 6 p.m. on the relevant date A1 and A2 i.e. the Principal and the Zonal Incharge of the college were informed about the illness of the deceased and they failed to take necessary immediate measures in order to prosecute them for the alleged offences. It is also his contention that it is clearly found in the statement of Smt.K.Rani, the class Incharge that while laying the deceased on the bench outside the classroom, the deceased informed that she was having pain in her left shoulder and joints and till that time, there was no basis to come to a conclusion or visualise that she was in a serious condition, so that all those who gathered around her or who received necessary information about it would have a chance to take serious note of it and also take necessary measures and emphatically as per the statement of Dr.Mrinal of the said hospital, at 6.25 p.m. on that date, the deceased was brought to the hospital, by which time she was no more and sufficient time would have taken place to take the deceased from the college to the hospital and therefore there was little time after 6 p.m. to approach the Doctor to give necessary medical treatment and in view of those circumstances, it cannot be said that because of the negligence of A1 and A2 only, the death of the deceased took place. 6. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of the defacto-complainant, Kum.K.Monika, Kum.J.Dikshetha, Kum.M.Rajitha, Kum.K.Swapna, Kum.S.Amulya other students of the class, Smt.T.Malathi mother of the deceased, T.Dharani Kumari, brother of the deceased, K.Y.Nagaraju, the said Motivation Lecturer, Polampalli Raju, driver, Dr.Mrinal, M.Venkataswamy, cousin brother of the deceased, S.Vishnu Kumar, cousin brother of Venkataswamy and Shaik Arif Hussain, Photographer. The statements of the defacto complainant, K.Monika, J.Dikshitha, M.Rajitha, K.Swapna, S.Amulya, Smt.K.Rani and also the statement of Dr.Mrinal are in accordance with prosecution version respectively, whereas the statements of other witnesses are hearsay in nature about the death of the deceased and other relevant factors. 7. It is found in the statement of Smt.K.Rani who was Incharge of the class that at about 6 p.m. following the sickness of the deceased, the latter was brought out of the class and was laid on the bench and then she informed that she was having pain in her left hand shoulder and joints. The statement of K.Monika, who is the classmate of the deceased clearly provides that at about 1 p.m. on that day, the deceased informed her that she was suffering from pains in her left hand shoulder and joints and thereby she informed the deceased to swing her hands and accordingly the deceased did so and later both of them involved in their studies in the class and at about 6 p.m. when the motivation lecturer entered the classroom, the deceased fell on her laps and so on. It also makes it clear that in between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. no unpleasant things happened outwardly. It was quite possible that she suffered some discomfort during that period which was not informed to anybody in the class and her condition became very serious after 6 p.m. onwards. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that definitely she would have survived if necessary medical treatment was given to her soon after she complained about pains in her left hand shoulder and joints at 1.00 p.m on that day. It is also to be emphasized that as per the statements of the direct witnesses, by 6 p.m. she was taken out of the classroom and was laid down on a bench, whereas as per the statement of Smt.K.Rani, the deceased informed her that she was having pains in her left hand shoulder and joints and further according to Dr.Mrinal, at 6.25 p.m. on that day, the deceased was brought to the hospital and then he examined the deceased and found that she already died. There is no material about the distance between the college and the hospital. In any case, 10 to 15 minutes would have lapsed for bringing the deceased to the hospital, so it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of any body in providing necessary medical treatment to the deceased after 6 p.m. If information was sent to A1 and A2 about her illness, it was their duty to take necessary action for providing her necessary medical treatment. The only allegation which can be taken into consideration against them is that even though necessary information was passed on to them, they did not approach the deceased in that context. There is no basis to say that though they got such information even prior to 6 p.m. they failed to take any action, which was required to be taken. Further, A1 and A2 are liable for necessary prosecution if the deceased passed away only as a consequence of their negligence. When the record discloses that by 6 p.m. only her serious illness came to light and then she was taken to the hospital by car, for which atleast 10 to 15 minutes might have taken, it cannot be said that the cause of death of the deceased was as a consequence of any negligence on the part of A1 and A2 prima facie. Further, K.Monika, who the classmate of the deceased and who was not a medical expert also could not have visualised that the condition of the deceased was so serious when the deceased informed her that she was suffering from pains in her left hand shoulder and joints. 8. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient material prima facie to prosecute A1 and A2 for the alleged offences and consequently, the proceedings in the calendar case are liable to be quashed. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in the calendar case are quashed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 16.9.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .10.2011