1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.06.2015 and the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 461/2015, wherein the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner.

3. The records disclose that a person by name Mujpar Shabbir Patel has lodged a complaint making allegations against the petitioner that, the petitioner has conducted surgery against the directions issued by the competent authority and also negligently caused severe damage to the wife of the complainant. On the basis of such complaint, the respondent- police have investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet before the Court for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.06.2015 has taken cognizance of the said offence and issued process against the petitioner herein. In fact, the petitioner also appeared before the Court on 05.11.2013 and she was enlarged on bail under Section 436 of Cr.PC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued before this court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, 2005 AIR (SCW) 3685 with respect to how the police officers have to deal with the offences alleged against the Doctors for the alleged negligence proceeding with a case registered against them or before investigating the matter and before filing any charge-sheet to the court. The said portion of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted herein below:

“24. We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasize the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefer recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurising the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against.

Statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service, qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying the Bolam test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigating officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.”

(Emphasis supplied)

5. It is the specific direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court by virtue of the above said guidelines, the Central and State Governments have to formulate certa