Satyavrat Verma, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 18.08.2018, passed in Protest Complaint Case No. 483 of 2006/Tr. No. 1716 of 2018, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gaya has been pleased to take cognizance, for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner, after the matter was remanded back by this Court by order dated 19.03.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 43133 of 2007.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that it would be pertinent to bring on record certain relevant facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the present case. It is further submitted that the complainant, who is brother-in-law of the deceased, had instituted Kotwali P.S. Case No. 73 of 2006, dated 29.03.2006, under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the police, after threadbare investigation, came to a considered conclusion that petitioner was innocent and, accordingly, final form was submitted. It is further submitted that the final form submitted by the police was accepted by the learned trial court vide order dated 08.08.2007 and by the same order the protest petition filed by the complainant was also dismissed. It is further submitted that the complainant, accordingly, moved before this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 43133 of 2007 challenging the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the learned trial court. This Court by order dated 19.03.2010 was pleased to set aside part of the order dated 08.08.2007 and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court to proceed in accordance with the procedure envisaged under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that this Court, while setting aside the part of the order, remanding the matter back to the learned trial court, had also indicated that since there was no medical negligence committed by the petitioner, as such, the said aspect of the matter can also be looked into by the learned trial court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the order dated 19.03.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 43133 of 2007 the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition being Case No. 483 of 2006 got revived wherein the complainant had alleged that one Suneeta, who was wife of one Vijay Kumar, the younger brother of this complainant, became pregnant and was carrying the pregnancy of two months with amenorrhea (not menstruating) in her womb and on 28.03.2006 Suneeta along with the complainant and others had gone to the clinic of the petitioner for regular check-up where as per advice pathological test was done showing positive sign of pregnancy, though the other features including blood pressure, pulse rate were found by the Doctor to be normal. It is further alleged that the petitioner, out of sheer greed for money, advised that the position of amenorrhea is not normal and the same may result in the death of the mother i.e. Suneeta and thus advised to get the pregnancy aborted. It is next alleged that on 29.03.2006, the complainant and his other family members along with Suneeta came to Bhadani Nursing Home where the operation was performed. It is alleged that at 02:00 p.m. on 29.03.2006, the operation was started and at about 03:15 p.m. the Doctor came out of the operation theatre and the patient was brought to the bed of the nursing home in an unconscious state. It is further alleged that even after lapse of about two hours, the patient did not regain her consciousness and on making request the Doctor and her compounder to look after the patient, the Doctor informed that she has injected sleeping medicine and the patient will regain her normal condition within an hour. It is next alleged that after lapse of one hour, the patient did not become conscious and, accordingly, request were made to the Doctor who refused to