IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2200 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Sewa Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gorakh Pal Rana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None. RANJIT SINGH J. As alleged in the petition, the petitioner's father was spraying pesticide in the field of respondents No. 5 to 7 on 01.07.2006. He suffered the effect of pesticides. and his body get effected. He was brought to the hospital of respondent No. 1, who is a Doctor. The petitioner-complainant reached the hospital. The doctor allegedly demanded sum of ` 50,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner states that he had paid this amount. Respondent No. 1 allegedly demanded another sum of ` 50,000/-. The complainant then told respondent No.1 that he should take care of his father and should not bother about money. Respondent No. 1 however, statedly told the petitioner that he would take care of his father only when money was paid to him. It is alleged by the complainant that due to his greed for money, respondent No.1 did not intentionally take care of his father and so he expired on 05.07.2010. On the basis of Ruqa sent, the case was registered. The complainant has wrote an application to Superintendent of Police, Karnal, who registered the case under Criminal Revision No. 2200 of 2010 -2- Section 304-A IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that offence under Section 304 IPC was required to be registered instead of 304- A IPC. The Court has found prima facie case under Sections 304-A, 406 and 506 IPC against respondent No.1/Dr.Vinod Kumar. The Court opined that no offence under sections 304, 217, 218, 219 and 120-B of IPC is made out. Respondent No.1 has been, accordingly, summoned. The complaint qua respondents No. 2 to 7 was dismissed. The present revision is directed against the order whereby respondents No. 2 to 7 have not been summoned. Plea is that Court has gravely erred in discharge the remaining accused, who had hatched the conspiracy of murder along with respondent No.1. Even as per the best allegation, no case of conspiracy on the part of the respondent No.2, apparently, is made out from the record. The primary allegations are made against the doctor, who has been summoned for negligence on his part. No one appears when the case is called earlier. The case came up for appearing before this Court on 29.09.2010 and on request the case was adjourned to 10.12.2010. Again, the case was adjourned to 02.02.2011. On 02.02.2011, again the request was made for adjournment when the case was adjourned sine die. No case for interference is made out. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. December 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE