I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/party-in-person.

2. The petitioner, who is a doctor by profession has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking a relief of set-aside the order dated 4.2.2014 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli in Crl.R.P No.115/2013 and also the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli in C.C. No.307/2012.

3. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein has filed a private complaint before the Court below and the Court was referred the complaint to Sub-Urban Police Station, Hubli under Section 156(3) and after due investigation, the police have filed ‘B’ report and the same is questioned by the respondent herein and the Court below after recording the sworn statement of the respondent herein proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner herein and thereafter regarding framing of charges is concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 465, 471 of IPC, the Court below heard the matter and passed the order dated 21.09.2013 and came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to frame charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 465, 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, the present petitioner herein by invoking Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has filed Crl.R.P No.115/2013. The Revisional Court after considering the contention of both the parties, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts below, the present petitioner has filed this petition.

4. The grounds urged in this petition, the very order of the Court below coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case to frame charges is illegal, improper and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. Further contention is that the dead body is not subjected to post-mortem examination and contention that in the case records, it is specifically mentioned that “patient’s attendar refused for postmortem” and in her presence, the respondent herein signed on the case sheet and thereafter, he put the date as 4.1.2008 at 11.45 p.m. These are two grounds seriously urged before both the Courts below and same has not been taken into consideration by both the Courts below and erroneously passed the order. Hence, it is necessary, this Court has to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the order impugned and there are no material to proceed with the case against this petitioner in the absence of the post-mortem report and the reasons for medical negligence cannot be ascertained without postmortem report. The other contention is that the allegation was made that the forgery is committed and there is no any forgery as alleged by the complainant. None of the ingredients of Section 465 of IPC (defining the offence Section 463 of IPC are made out, therefore, Section 471 of IPC is also not attracted and with regard to the offence under Section 304A of IPC also, there is no material, in spite of specific contention taken by the petitioner, the trial Court and the Revisional Court failed to consider the same and hence, prayed this Court to set-aside the order impugned.

5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments he vehemently contended that first of all, there is no postmortem report before the Court below and the complainant is also an advocate, who is having knowledge of the very purpose of conducting post-mortem and the very complaint is filed after one year, the trial Court ought not to have referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to investigate the same. However, investigating officer also filed ‘B’ report before the Court below and the very condition requisite for initiation of the proceedings, there must be a material before the Court with regard to the alleged offence has been committed and Section 191 of Cr.P.C. is also taken into consideration and same is incurable defect