Sandeep Kumar, J.—This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. vide Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 29 of 2015 registered for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the F.I.R. on 17.02.2015 the cousin brother of the informant met with an accident and was taken to Adarsh Orthopedic Centre, which belongs to the petitioner. Upon examination, the petitioner said that the patient had fracture in his right hand. After applying temporary plaster upon his right hand and asked the patient to come back on 18.02.2015 for surgery. It is alleged that on the next day, the cousin brother of the informant was taken to the operation theater and was administered local anesthesia without calling the anesthetist. The patient was kept in operation for next three hours and then without performing the surgery, the petitioner came out of the operation theater and left his clinic and went to Rajeshwar Hospital. When his family member enquired, the petitioner said that the patient had gone into deep coma and is unconscious and thus, suggested them to admit the patient in Rajeshwar Hospital. It is also alleged that the informant saw his cousin’s face was pale and was not breathing. Immediately, they rushed him to Rajeswhar Hospital where he was declared brought dead.

3. It is alleged that though the petitioner is an orthopaedist, who has no skill or experience to administer anesthesia and he out of negligence and greed, intentionally did not call the anesthetist in order to save some money which resulted into administering a high dose of anesthesia and that in turn led to the death of his cousin.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner and the informant and others brought the patient in a very serious condition in his nursing home. He duly attended him and upon examination concluded that he had fracture on his right hand and suggested a surgery. She further submits that on next day, an anesthetist was also called and the patient was administered anesthesia and as per the established protocol OT Note was also prepared during the course of surgery and a risk bond was also got signed by the family of the patient informing about the risks involved in the surgery and that of the anesthesia also.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that upon administration of anesthesia, the petitioner found that the condition of patient was deteriorating and therefore, he immediately asked the family members of the patient to take him to Rajeshwar Hospital but, seeing the condition of the patient deteriorating instead of taking the patient to Rajeshwar Hospital they created scene at the nursing home. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the doctor rather negligence was on the part of the family of the patient.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before lodging the F.I.R. the police did not follow the mandatory guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathews vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180 and in the case of Martin F. D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in AIR 2009 SC 2049.

7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

8. Learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.3 submits that as per the F.I.R. prima facie case is made out against the petitioner since the petitioner did not call the Anesthetist in order to save money and himself administered high dose of anesthesia upon the patient and as a result of which, the patient died.

9. I have considered the submissions of the parties. I have also perused the materials available on record. In nutshell, the allegation against the petitioner is that though he is an orthopedist, who has no skill or experience to administer anesthesia and he out of negligence and greed, intentionally did not call the anesthetist in order to save money which resulted into administering a high dose of anesthesia and that, in t