1. Arundhati Sapru Mehra, first respondent in Crl. M.C 1223/2015 and the second respondent in Crl. M.C. 947/2016 was married to Yash Mehra (petitioner in Crl. M.C. 947/2016) on 12.07.2001. She (hereinafter, referred to as “the complainant”) had lodged a criminal complaint case (CC no.19496/2008 – new no.6/2/15) on 17.03.2008 in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi alleging offences punishable under Sections 315, 328, 329, 406, 420, 498A, 506 read with Section 120 B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) impleading Yash Mehra (hereinafter referred to as “the first accused”), Ashok Khurana (“second accused”), Dr. Tripat Chaudhary, petitioner in Crl. M.C. 1223/2015 (“third accused”) and Dr. Raj Kumar Saxena (“fourth accused”). On the said criminal case, the Metropolitan Magistrate held preliminary inquiry in the course of which the complainant examined herself (as CW-1), also examining D.R. Tiwari, Medical Record Officer of Kailash Hospital, Noida (CW-2) and B.K. Pandey, Sr. Executive Medical Records, Sitaram Bharatiya Institute of Science and Research (also CW-2). The Magistrate, by order dated 03.11.2014, declined to issue any process against the second accused. She, however, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the first accused (petitioner Yash Mehra) for offences under Sections 498A, 315, 328, 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC. She also found sufficient grounds to proceed against the third accused (petitioner Dr. Tripat Chaudhary) for offences under Sections 315, 120B IPC. It may be added that summoning order was also issued against the fourth accused for offences under Sections 506 and 120B IPC.

2. The first and third accused, as aforesaid, feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order, have come up to this court by the petitions at hand invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC to seek the said order issuing process against them to be quashed and vacated.

3. The complainant had initially appeared in these proceedings with a counsel representing her. On 19.07.2018, she informed the court that she did not want the services of any counsel. All sides have been heard at length and the record has been perused.

4. From the averments in the complaint and the documents which have been filed therewith or the material submitted with the petitions at hand, there seems to be no dispute as to the fact that the complainant was married to the first accused (Yash Mehra) on 12.07.2001. While the complainant had a failed previous marriage, it having been dissolved by a decree of divorce, Yash Mehra was a widower at the time of his marriage with the complainant. It appears that on account of their cohabitation, the complainant had become pregnant, she having developed some urinary track infection (UTI) in July/August 2001. She was taken for medical treatment, she eventually coming up for such purposes before the third accused (Dr. Tripat Chaudhary) who was consultant in Sita Ram Institute of Science and Research in Mehrauli Institutional Area, New Delhi, by the end of July 2001. There is material to show that some complications arose on or about 28.07.2001 for which she had consulted the third accused. On 15.09.2001, she was again examined by the third accused in the aforementioned hospital. There is material to show that on 17.10.2001, she was subjected to ultrasound examination by the person mentioned as second accused (not summoned) who found that there was no heart beat in the foetus. The report was seen by the third accused and on the basis of her medical examination, the complainant underwent a procedure described as Dilatation and Evacuation (D &E) on 18.10.2001 at the said hospital. The complainant herself has proved the discharge document (Ex. CW1/E) dated 19.10.2001 pertaining to the said procedure. The material would show that the pregnancy was of the duration of eight weeks plus six days. The ultrasound examination had revealed the “gestational sac in the