Sahil S/O Jagdish Karihar And Another v. State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Sadar Nagpur And Another

10.Cri. APL No.616.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.616/2021 Sahil S/o. Jagdish Karihar and Anr.

Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Anr.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders or directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for applicants.

Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : V. M .DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 07/07/2021.

1.

This is an application for quashment of the First Information Report for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 188, 323, 448, 427, 504, 506, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3, 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Sections 3, 4 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act and the Rules, 1961 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The report is lodged by Dr. Sharmishtha Pranav Roy, who was discharging her duty at Vinus Critical Care Hospital, Chhavani, Nagpur which was declared as Covid Center, in which one Sangita Umesh Samudre was admitted as a covid patient. At the time of admission, it was informed that health of said patient is deteriorating. It appeared, in spite of best efforts from the hospital, said patient succumbed to Covid-19. Thereafter, as per the First Information Report, the present applicants, who claimed to be the students along with others made ruckus in the

10.Cri. APL No.616.21 hospital and therefore, this First Information Report was lodged.

2.

After hearing Shri S. D. Chande, the learned counsel for the applicants, when the Court was dictating the order and was dismissing the application that time, Shri Chande submitted that he has instructions to withdraw this application.

3.

Application is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

It is made clear that since the learned counsel is withdrawing the application, the Court is not giving further details as to why this application needs dismissal. JUDGE JUDGE RGurnule