The judgment clarified the scope of the magistrate's power to order further investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the court's authority to order the production of relevant documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. - This criminal revision has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District-Surguja, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.478/2007, in which the prayer made by the applicant for issuance of direction of the Court for additional investigation was rejected.

2. The facts of the case are these that the complainant- Rakesh Bansal has lodged F.I.R. against the applicant stating that his pregnant wife was visiting the applicant for regular check-up in the year 2006. On 27.09.2006, the pregnant wife of the complainant was in distress because of which she was admitted in the nursing home of the applicant on 28.09.2006. The complainant was not briefed about the situation by the applicant. The wife of the complainant was carrying twins, one of the children was delivered dead and the other died due to infections later on. The complainant has alleged that the applicant has committed gross negligence in examining and providing medical treatment to his wife. The death of the child in womb was suppressed and this fact also was suppressed, that because of the situation, there was likelihood that other child may also die. On this basis, an F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for prosecution and offences under Section 316, 304, 338, 201 of I.P.C.

3. The applicant filed an application under Section 173(8) read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C. praying for fresh investigation of the case, on the ground that there are two medical reports which are contradictory to each other and there was necessity to investigate the case in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) AIRSCW 3685 . The learned trial Court has by the impugned order holding that a similar application was filed before the Court of committal Magistrate which was rejected on 22.12.2007, which was suppressed and also holding that the order passed by the committal Magistrate was revisable against which no revision has been presented by the applicant and for these reasons his application has been rejected.

4. It is submitted that in the case Jacob Mathew (Supra), the Full Bench of Supreme Court has very clearly laid down guidelines and gave protection to the practicing doctors against frivolous complaints, allegations and prosecution. It is submitted that in case of S.K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Dhanwanti Kaur & Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 282 , the Supreme Court has held that if the person accused has acted in accordance with the general and approved practice, that is enough to clear him of charge.

5. It is submitted that the learned trial Court had jurisdiction to order for additional investigation in this case for the simple reason that the case has not been investigated in accordance with the guidelines that have been laid down in the case of Jacob Mathew (Supra). Before the report was submitted by the joint Committee of medical professionals and administrative officers on 26.12.2006, one of the members of that Committee namely Dr. Shushma Sinha had submitted report to the Collector, Surguja, stating that the applicant had not committed any reckless and gross negligence and she has opined that no ground is made out for criminal prosecution and similarly, another member Dr. P.K. Shrivastava had given his dissent in trial report. The petitioner had earlier challenged the prosecution against him in W.P.(Cr.) No.702/2009 which has been decided on 05.07.2010, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition, however, it was observed that the applicant has liberty to take recourse to remedy of revision against the order dated 24.09.2008 which is the impugned order. At present, the prayer of the applicant is not for discharge but only to bring in other relevant material which has been deliberately not brought by the prosecution in the charge-sheet.

6. It is submitted that in th