1. Petitioner No.1, a doctor at primary health centre, along with three other accused persons, have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to set aside order dated 17.11.2008 made below application Ex.7 in Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 2008 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand. By that impugned order in the revision application filed by the original complainant, the order dated 12.3.2008 of learned JMFC rejecting the prayer for ordering investigation by registering an FIR under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was set aside and straightaway summons were ordered to be issued against all the five persons accused in the original complaint. That order was challenged mainly on the ground that learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction and power to straightaway order issuance of summons in a revision application under section 397 of Cr.P.C.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the original complaint approached Police Inspector, Borsad on 27.8.2006 with the complaint of offences punishable under sections 376, 302, 201 and 120-B read with section 114 of IPC upon death of her daughter, aged 20, working as a volunteer at the primary health centre, but that complaint was never registered. Therefore, she filed a criminal case before learned JMFC on 25.9.2006 and, besides narrating the circumstances surrounding the death of her young daughter and making serious allegations, it was specifically prayed that the alleged offences required investigation by an impartial police officer of a higher rank. That complaint was registered as Inquiry Case No.57 of 2006 and an inquiry under the provisions of section 202 of Cr.P.C. was ordered on 06.10.2006. Thereafter, further order dated 30.4.2008 was made to state that further inquiry was necessary before issuing process and, therefore, one Dr.Vijay Thakker was summoned as a witness with original documents of medical examination. After that order dated 30.04.2008, the complainant submitted an application for ordering an investigation by police officer after registering an FIR. That application was rejected on 12.3.2008 on the ground that inquiry under section 202 was already completed after taking cognizance. Thereafter, the whole complaint was also dismissed under section 203 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 16.5.2008, even after taking note of the marks of physical injury on the body of the victim and recording that the cause of death could not be ascertained even after the post-mortem conducted twice.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.5.2008 dismissing the complaint, the original complainant preferred the revision application in which, after recording that the trial court had seriously erred in appreciating the evidence, the impugned order dated 12.3.2008 was set aside (although in fact the order dated 16.5.2008 was under challenge) and summons were ordered to be issued to the accused persons. In view of the fact that the original complainant may not be in a position to undergo third round of litigation only for proper investigation and prosecution of the accused persons, learned senior counsel and veteran in the field of criminal law, Mr.A.D.Shah, was requested to assist the court at the admission stage as an amicus curiae; and he readily and kindly consented and assisted the Court.

4. The allegations in brief of the original complainant are that her daughter, aged 20, studying in third year of college, was working as a volunteer in Davol Primary Health Centre. On 23.8.2006, her daughter went to the P.H.C. Centre at 10.30 a.m. in a hale and hearty condition. At around 1.00 p.m., three persons came in a car to inform her that her daughter was taken ill. Therefore, she accompanied them in the car wherein she learnt that the persons in the car, whom she could recognize, were frequently talking to accused No.1 on mobile phone. She was taken to a private dispensary where accused No.1 and 2 were present, but she was not pe