The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice.

( 1 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that one Shri Ravi Arora, hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1, filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi under Sections 336/338/ 420/34 Indian Penal Code against Dr. A M. Berry, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, Dr. Tripta Dutta (respondent No. 2), Dr. (Mrs.) Chander Kanta Bhalla (Respondent No. 3) and Dr. O. P. Sharma (Respondent No. 4) all attached to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.

( 2 ) THE concerned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and found a prima fade case for rash and negligence Act on the part of Dr. Tripta Gupta, Dr. Chander Kanta Bhalla and Dr. A. M. Berry. He summoned them for the offences punishable under Sections 336 and 338 IPC. According to him, all these three accused persons conducted an operation of parotid abcess on the face of a baby 17 days old in a rash and negligent manner causing damage to the nerves. The incision given was not transverse rather it was oblique. Even the consent of the guardian of the baby was not obtained before conducting the operation.

( 3 ) THE order of summoning was challenged by Dr. A. M. Berry by filing a petition. Cr. M. (M) 555/87 in this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. but the same was dismissed by M. K. Chawla, J. in limine passing an order as under:

"cr. M (M) 555/87. Dismissed. "

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate mentioning the allegation against them. Then the petitioner Dr. Berry filed Crl. Revision against the order dated 21. 11. 87 passed by the trial Court before the Addl. Sessions Judge, but the same was dismissed as barred by time and the application for consideration of delay was also dismissed.

( 5 ) AGGRIEYED, the petitioner Dr. Berry has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings on various grounds. His main contention is that he is MBBS. MD (Pediatrician) attached to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as a consultant (Pediatrician ). He is not a peaediatric surgeon and that he did not perform any such operation on the face of the child. He drew my attention towards para 6 of the criminal complaint filed by the respondent Ravi Arora wherein it has been admitted by the respondent that the child was operated upon by Dr. Mrs. Tripta Dutta without following the mandatory medical provisions of operating the child only with a special written consent of the parents of the child. According to the petitioner there is no allegation against him for conducting this operation as he is not a surgeon. The question of rashness and negligence in conducting the operation does not arise at all against him, when he has not conducted the said operation. As per his version Smt. Sarika Arora wife of respondent No. 1 Ravi Arora gave birth to a female child. The baby was premature of 7 weeks gestation. On 17th day of the birth of the baby, she developed parotid swelling under both the ears. The baby was under the treatment of the petitioner as well as Dr. Chander Kanta Bhalla who are paediatricians attached to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Dr. Bhalla, respondent No. 3 examined the baby and referred the case for consultation with respondent No. 2. Dr. Mrs. Tripta Dutta, paediatric surgeon also attached to Slr Ganga Ram Hospital. Dr. Tripta Dutta kept the baby under observation and later on she drained off the abcess. At the relevant time when the abcess was drained off by Dr. Dutta, the petitioner was not present and was attending to his clinic at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Neither the alleged operation was conducted in his presence nor he is a party to it. The order of his summoning under Sections 336 and 338 Indian Penal Code for the alleged act of rashness and neligence in conducting the operation on the baby and serving him with a notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. are illegal and unjustified and an abuse of the process of law. The criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to