The power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR bearing No. 198/2002 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 304A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC.).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.07.2002 a complaint was filed by the complainant/Respondent No.2, i.e., Krishan Tyagi wherein it had been stated that his wife/victim (deceased), was suffering from stomach pain since last five days and had been taken to a private hospital at Kingsway Camp, Delhi, where the concerned doctors administered two injections to the victim but she did not get any relief from pain. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi, where she had been administered with some injections which had relieved her pain. However, one of the doctors suspected that the victim may be suffering due to stones and suggested that an ultra-sound should be conducted. Ultrasound report of the victim had been submitted to Petitioner No.3 who informed the complainant that his wife/victim had stones in her gallbladder and that an operation was required at the earliest. As per the advice of Petitioner No.3, the victim had been admitted in Roop Nagar Hospital, Delhi, at 11.30 a.m. and few tests were conducted. At about 1 p.m. on the directions given by Petitioner No.1 and 2, a nurse Ms. Simmi had administered glucose and an injection to the victim. After 8-10 minutes the victim had started shouting at the top of her voice pointing towards her stomach. No one was available to attend her at the time and when 1-2 doctors went to her room after 15 minutes the victim was not breathing. At about 4 p.m., Petitioner No.3 informed the complainant that his wife had died due to heart attack.

3. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet under Sections 304A/34 IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken against the petitioners and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and presently, it is at the stage of framing of notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits, on the point of limitation and maintainability of the order of cognizance, that the charge sheet was filed in defiance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court along with documents, i.e., enquiry report dated 13.01.2003 of the Medical Board constituted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi that no negligence can be attributed to the petitioners and order dated 29.06.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Tiz Hazari Court, Delhi holding that no deficiency of service by the petitioners is relevant in this regard.

5. Per Contra, Learned APP for the State opposes the application filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR and further submits that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 294 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2010, The relevant portion of the order is as under:

"It is settled law that at the stee of framing the charge accuse cannot file documents his defence. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rukmini's case, (2009) 1 SCC (Crl.) 721 observed that there may be rare cases in which documents can be allowed to be filed by accused and those casesare where such documents completely demonstrate that case of the prosecution is totally absurd or totally concocted.

The present case is a summons trial case and therefore no opportunity of hearing on charge is to be given. Therefore, in my considered view. accused cannot further be allowed to file documents and cannot further be allowed to seek admission/denial thereof. When no opportunity of hearing is to be given, there is no question of filling of documents by the a