In his plea against the summoning order, the doctor contended that he was not named in a charge sheet by the police and there was no evidence against him.
The special judge, however, rejected his contention and said, "At the stage of inquiry, the metropolitan magistrate (MM) has the power to summon the accused who have not been charge-sheeted.
"MM can rely upon material placed before him with the charge sheet. At the stage of summoning, MM is not required write a detailed order. The summoning order cannot be interfered with..."
The court further observed that standard of appreciation of the material at the stage of summoning is not to be as high as at the stage of framing of charge which in turn is not as high as at the stage of finally deciding the matter.
"The view taken by the MM in the impugned order is a possible view. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the additional affidavit cannot be considered at this stage as they are arguments, which are still to be submitted before the trial court and it has yet to take a decision on those grounds which may be addressed at the time of arguments on charge," the judge said.
According to the complaint, on July 13, 2014 at about 9 am, Satpal Singh, along with his two sons, went to the AIIMS emergency department for the treatment of his father.
He alleged that the duty doctor refused to provide treatment to his father after which a heated exchange of words took place, adding that the doctor called two more doctors and security guards and an altercation took place.
However, in a subsequent complaint two weeks later, Singh named the three doctors who slapped and punched him.
An FIR was registered but the police named only the security guards in the charge sheet and not the doctors, it said.
The magisterial court, however, in its July 18, 2016 order, summoned not just the security guards but the three doctors as accused too.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)