IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2459 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CR. NO.342/2005 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- 1. SIDDIQUE, 51 YEARS,S/O.UNNIANKUTTY, ONGANATTUTHODI, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KHADEEJA, W/O. SIDDIQUE, 51 YEARS, S/O. UNNIANKUTTY, ONGANATTUTHODI, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANAGER, THE THRISSUR HEART HOSPITAL, THRISSUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2459 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.453/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thrissur. Based on Annexure-II final report, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent, the wife of the first petitioner, was admitted to Thrissur Heart Hospital. Her illness was diagnosed as unstable angina. Angiogram test was conducted. Thereafter, angioplasty treatment was performed. Case against the petitioners is that its cost of Rs.73,139/- was not paid as promised. 2. Case of the petitioners is that when it was informed that Rs.73,139/- will be the cost of angioplasty treatment and first petitioner is not having that much amount, he contacted his relatives and they, in turn, contacted Moulana Hospital, CRMC 2459/09 2 Perinthalmanna, who offered to conduct the surgery at Rs.43,000/-. But, before second petitioner could be taken, angioplasty treatment was done on the second petitioner without the consent and petitioners are not liable to pay the cost and in such circumstances, an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not involved. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that the ingredients of the offence is not made out. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary and pointed out the consent letters for conducting both angiogram and angioplasty on the second petitioner. 5. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent, I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CRMC 2459/09 3 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that learned Magistrate has already framed the charge and case is posted for recording prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions before the Magistrate. Petition is disposed. 11th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv