In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Advocate Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, holding that the prosecution was instituted with mala fide and malicious intent. Justice Shree Prakash Singh delivered the judgment on 10 April 2025 in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on 8 February 2007 by one Sheela Gupta. It was alleged that Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava had performed a negligent surgery at the Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Malihabad, resulting in malignancy. Subsequently, when the informant was sitting on a dharna, both applicants allegedly hit her with a motorcycle and threatened her with dire consequences, leading to a fracture in her left elbow.
Charges under Sections 325 and 506 IPC were framed based on the chargesheet dated 18 December 2007. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, issued summoning orders on 19 December 2007 and 22 July 2013.
Submissions by the Applicants
Counsel for the applicants, Advocate Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly two months and that the chargesheet was filed in a hurried manner without proper investigation. He emphasized that the prosecution witnesses, including the informant’s husband, were not ocular witnesses and relied solely on hearsay.
The applicants submitted material indicating that:
- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was on emergency and Pulse Polio duty at P.H.C. Malihabad on the date of the alleged incident.
- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava was present at the High Court, where several of his cases were listed, supported by affidavits of four advocates.
- An earlier departmental inquiry by Dr. M.K. Gupta, Deputy CMO, dated 29 August 2006, found no evidence of medical negligence by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava.
The applicants contended that the complaint arose after the informant failed to obtain compensation and aimed to falsely implicate them due to personal grudge and failed extortion attempts.
Arguments by the State
The Additional Government Advocate submitted that the applicants were named in the FIR and that two rounds of investigation were conducted—first by the original Investigating Officer and then by a second officer appointed after the applicants’ application for further investigation. He maintained that the chargesheet and summoning orders were based on available evidence.
Court’s Analysis
The court observed that the departmental inquiry had exonerated Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, concluding that any medical negligence pertained to a private hospital, not the government facility. Justice Singh noted:
“It is not understandable that for what reason and motive, the applicants would be intended to commit such offence.”
The court highlighted that no public eyewitnesses supported the prosecution’s claims, and the witnesses cited by the prosecution were not present at the scene. It further found that:
“The applicant no. 2 was on duty from 14-01-2007 to 15-01-2007 and later on was on Pulse Polio Duty… this fact has not been denied anywhere in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondent.”
Regarding the advocate-applicant, the court observed:
“Applicant no. 1 was present in the High Court on 15-01-2007… this fact seems to be ignored by the Investigating Officer as well as the learned trial court.”
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, and concluded that the present case squarely fell under category (7) of mala fide prosecution:
“The first information report has been lodged with a malafide and malicious intention… squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal.”
Decision
The court held that continuing the trial would result in gross abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, it quashed the impugned orders dated 19.12.2007 and 22.07.2013, the chargesheet dated 18.12.2007, and the entire criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 77/2007, Police Station Kotwali Hazratganj, District Lucknow.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed.
