Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In an unfortunate incident happened on 19.01.2001 in Shakuntala Nursing Home, Sri Ganganagar, Smt. Manju Devi died after giving birth to a girl child on 15.01.2001. A FIR was lodged on the same day, 19.01.2001 by one Nanak Chand Singhal S/o Durga Prasad Agarwal, a relative of deceased Manju Devi. The case was registered and thereafter, post mortem was also conducted and the post mortem report dt. 19.01.2001 was obtained by the prosecution. The post mortem says as under:-

“Conclusion—In the opinion of the Board the cause of death is Heamorrhagic shock due to injury of Rt Formix of Vagina and Rt side Cervix (tear) leading to huge Haematoma in Rt Brood ligament Extending Retro peritoreally in Pelvis and upto lower Pole of Kidney and Bladder base.”

3. A Medical Board was also constituted who gave its interim report on 23.01.2001. The statement of various witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC wherein the statements of Dr.KL Gupta and Dr.Indra Pal Singh Poonia who signed the report dt. 23.01.2001 were also recorded. In addition to above statements of two doctors, the statement of Dr.Kailash, Jr. Specialist (Medicine), Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar; Dr. Ram Patap Poonia, CMHO, Hanumangarh; Dr. B.R. Kataria, Jr. Specialist (Gynae), Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar; Dr. Ashok Gupta of one Mahaveer Nursing Home, Raisinghnagar, relative of deceased and Dr. Ashok Garg, MD (Medicine) were also recorded. After investigation, a challan was submitted in the Court and cognizance was taken by the Court vide order dt. 22.03.2001 after registering the criminal case No.141/2001 under Sec. 304 Part II IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by order dt. 30.03.2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar vide order dt. 18.10.2002 held that no case under Sec. 304 Part-II IPC is made out and it is a case under Sec. 304A IPC only and since it is triable by the Magistrate, therefore, the same was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar.

4. The petitioner has challenged the prosecution by preferring this petition under Sec. 482 CrPC on the ground that from the material available on record, no case is made out of committing any offence by the petitioner under Sec. 304A IPC or even of any other offence. It is submitted that the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the case of the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of the Court and deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that Manju Devi was admitted in the petitioner’s hospital and the petitioner is doctor and having speciality degree of MS in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. She was awarded degree as back as in the year 1979 and the copy of the degree is placed on record by the prosecution itself. She is in practice of medical profession and running her hospital which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was established in the year 1987. The petitioner is handling the cases of delivery also regularly. The victim was admitted in the petitioner’s hospital for delivery on 15.01.2001 and she delivered a girl child in normal course meaning thereby without surgery. Her condition was good after delivery and it is relevant that she gave birth to child only within 2-3 hours after her admission in the Nursing Home of the petitioner. In delivery, as per the prosecution case itself, victim Smt. Manju Devi suffered some injury in vaginal part. She was given blood of three bottles. She was taken care fully not by the petitioner herself but by other expert doctors also who gave treatment to Smt. Manju Devi. She tried her best to give best treatment to Smt. Manju Devi but because of “dic”, she could not be saved by the best efforts of the petitioner and even with the help of other expert doctors. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no negligence of the petitioner in handling the case of delivery a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document