The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for taking cognizance of the offence and the nexus between medical treatment and the alleged death were crucial factors in the court's decision.

M.L. MEHTA, J

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Order dated 06.05.2010 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 05/2010 in FIR No.154/01 registered at P.S. Roop Nagar.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that a complaint was filed by Yadveer Singh Chauhan on 07.06.1998 to the SHO, P.S. Roop Nagar stating that his wife Sapna was admitted in Parmarth Mission Hospital on 08.03.1997 during her pregnancy for her treatment and was discharged on 19.03.1997. She was again admitted in the said hospital on 22.05.1997 where she delivered a child after a cesarean operation. It was stated by the complainant that his wife was experiencing pain in her abdomen due to infection and on the advice of Dr.V. Thukral , the uterus of the deceased was removed on 27.05.97, but she got no relief from the pain. Thereafter she regularly visited the hospital and was under the treatment of the present petitioner. The deceased wife of the complainant underwent several X-rays, ultrasound and other tests which were seen by the petitioner and Dr.V. Thukral. As there was no relief to the wife of the complainant, she was discharged from the hospital on 19.05.1998 and her ailment was diagnosed as Australia Antigen. She was thereafter taken to Hindu Rao Hospital by the complainant where she underwent an operation on 25.05.1998 and a sponge like foreign body nearly 17 cm. x 17 cm. with a tag nearly 11 cm. was removed from her abdomen and she was declared dead at 3.45 P.M. on 26.05.1998.

3. Consequent to his complaint, an inquiry was conducted by ACP, Civil Lines who did not find any force in the complaint and closed it on 22.4.1999. Haplessly the complainant filed another complaint in the Court of learned ACMM on 25.5.2001, pursuant to which the learned ACMM directed the Police to register an FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. An FIR under Section 304-A/34 IPC was registered by the Police on 13.07.2001 and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against Dr. Vinod Thukral, Dr. Asha Gupta and the petitioner. Another report was filed by the Police alleging that the Management of Parmarth Mission Hospital was negligent in their treatment of the deceased wife of the complainant.

4. After receiving the opinion of the Medical Board, charge sheet was filed on 03.12.2002 and on the same day the learned MM took cognizance of offence under Section 304-A/34 IPC and summoned the three accused persons besides the Management of the Hospital vide his order dated 26.10.2004. Assailing the summoning order on the ground of limitation and issue of cause of death of the complainants wife, revision petition was filed by the present petitioner which was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 06.05.2010 opining that the cognizance was within limitation period as the complaint was filed on 25.5.2001 and FIR was registered on 13.07.2001and charge sheet was filed on 03.12.2002 and further that prima facie it was a case of gross negligence by the accused persons. Hence the present petition.

5. The impugned order is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the ld. Revision Court had committed illegality in holding that the cognizance was taken on 03.12.2002 and not on 26.10.2004. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that cognizance was barred by limitation as the first complaint was made on 07.06.1998 and summoning order was passed on 26.10.2004 after 6 years and 5 months. It was further submitted that the impugned order of summoning was also illegal as there was no relation between the caesarean surgery performed at the hospital and the death of the wife of the complainant after one year and further that the sponge recovered from the deceaseds abdomen was never preserved and presented before the Medical Board. It was also submitted that no MLC or postmortem report was prepared by the hospital where she breathed her last, to ascer