- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200008 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE STATE THROUGH, BIDAR TOWN POLICE STATION. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP) AND: DR.SHILPA SHINDE, R/O. AURAD, DIST.BIDAR-585 326. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27.07.2018 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE & PRINCIPAL DISTRICT SESSION JUDGE, BIDAR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.23/2017. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State seeking to set aside the order dated 27.07.2018 passed in Special Case No.23/2017 by the learned Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar. 2. Factual matrix of the case: It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant-Smt.Surekha who is resident of Edoor village 10 kms., away from Aurad Taluk to Maharashtra, District Bidar, filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., stating that on 12.10.2016 around about 3.30 a.m., she being pregnant of nine months, due to labor pain came to the General Hospital, Aurad-B along with her mother, husband etc. Nurse-Renuka and the respondent-Dr.Shilpa were present in the said hospital. It is stated that nurse- Renuka checked the blood pressure of the complainant and intimated to the respondent. The respondent stated that within an half an hour the complainant has to go to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 other hospital. It is further alleged that though the complainant was in critical condition, the respondent refused to take care of her and also she refused to treat her. Consequently, said Surekha gave birth to a baby in the public place. Even thereafter, the respondent denied to take care of the newborn baby and the mother. Therefore, the respondent stated to have violated the Human Rights. The Trial Court took suo moto complaint and after taking cognizance issued summons to the respondent. The respondent entered her appearance and filed an application for discharge. The said application has been allowed. 3. Heard Sri.Siddaling P.Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner – State and Sri.Anilkumar Navadagi, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is the submission of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-State - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 that the Trial Court while considering the application for discharge, has to see whether the prosecution has made out prima facie case or not. A roving enquiry need not be necessary at that stage. 5. It is further submitted that the Trial Court after taking suo moto cognizance, directed the Member Secretary of the Legal Services Authority to conduct investigation of the case and submit the report. After having received the said report, the Trial Court opined that there are materials to proceed against the respondent. Inspite of the materials to proceed with the case, the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the application for discharge. Therefore, the said order has to be set aside. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent justified the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that the Trial Court while considering the application cannot act as a mouth piece or post office between the complainant and the prosecution. It has to appreciate the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 contents of the material available on record and arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is prima facie case to proceed against the accused or not. 7. It is further submitted that if the Trial Court is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case made out against the accused, obviously it has to allow the discharge application. 8. It is further submitted that the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record opined that the respondent has not violated any Human Rights as she has not done her specialization in gynaecology. She being a Doctor recommended the woman to go to higher hospital and also arranged the ambulance to go to another hospital. Even assuming that she has not attended the woman and newly born child, that may not be construed as violation of Human Rights, however, it may be a negligence. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in allowing the application is proper and justifiable and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 interference with the said findings may not be necessary. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, at this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the purpose of clarification on the principle of law to deal with discharge application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Chadha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024)10 SCC 651 at paragraphs-21 and 22 held as under: 21. In the decision in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, this Court held that the word ‘ground’ in Section 227 Cr.PC, did not mean a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. 22. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, after extracting Section 227 Cr.PC, this Court in paragraph No.10 and 11 held thus: (SCC pp. 401-402) “10. … If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.” 10. On careful reading of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be inferred that at the time of considering the application for discharge, the Court would consider the facts of the case which need not be the ground for conviction, however, a ground for putting the accused on trial. 11. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is relevant to refer the present case for the purpose of analyzing the facts. In the present case, it is stated that the respondent has violated the Human Rights in not attending the pregnant woman when she had visited the hospital for delivery. However, the facts would reveal that the respondent had not done her gynaecology and she was not specialized in conducting the delivery of baby. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2202 CRL.RP No. 200008 of 2019 12. On considering the averments of the suo moto complaint, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to proceed against the respondent on the ground that she has violated the Human Rights. Hence, I decline to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court in allowing the application. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is rejected. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 CT:PK