Medical negligence requires proof of intent and knowledge; mere deviation from accepted practices does not establish criminal liability.

ORDER

1. The legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision Petition No.72/2015 has been assailed by the petitioner by way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Bereft of elaborated details, the brief facts giving rise to the instant criminal revision petition which are necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner-Dr. Renu Setia is a Gynecologist, duly approved by the Medical Council of India, who was running a hospital in the name and style of Bombay Hospital at Hanumangarh Junction. On the fateful day i.e. 15.09.2008 at 6:00 A.M. a lady named Pinki W/o Rajesh Kumar was admitted in the Bombay Hospital, Hanumangarh, as she was having labour pain. She was taken to labour room at 5:00 p.m. On the very same day, it was observed that the child had died in her womb. It was alleged that despite repeated request, the petitioner did not turn up to take care of her and as a consequence of which, the patient Pinki, mother of the child also died due to negligent conduct of the petitioner and medical attendant Praveen. After investigation, a charge sheet for accusation of offence under Section 304 IPC came to be submitted against the petitioner and the nurse Praveen. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of deceased Pinki was opined to be hemorrhagic shock. The visceras were preserved for chemical and histopathological examinations and in the report of expert dated 10.11.2008, it was mentioned that uterus was found intact and no specific pathology was seen. A Medical Board was constituted for the purpose of autopsy to know the cause of death and to verify the allegations of negligence and as per its report dated 14.11.2008, there appears no negligence during the course of delivery. It was specifically mentioned that in intra uterine death cases, cesarean section was not essential and forceps delivery can be performed. The investigating agency sent a questionnaire to the Medical Board and in response to which the Board gave a reply, as per which, there was no negligence or omission on the part of the accused-petitioner. Admittedly, in this case, instead of cesarean section, the forceps delivery method was adopted by the doctor. Upon submission of charge sheet, the arguments were heard on the point whether there appears reasonable ground to take cognizance of the offence and if yes, then under which offence the matter should be proceeded with. Vide judgment dated 05.03.2011, the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court') after elaborate discussion of the factual and legal aspects applicable in the matter found no case for proceeding further in the matter for offence under Section 304 IPC or under Section 304-A of the IPC and thus, discharged the petitioner while declining to take cognizance.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.03.2011, the complainant filed a Criminal Revision Petition No.72/2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional Court'). The revisional Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 05.07.2016 has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and remanded the matter back with a specific direction to pass an order afresh as to whether there were sufficient grounds for taking cognizance or not, the said order is under assail before this Court.

4. The office report dated 18.10.2016 revealing that the notices upon non-petitioners Nos.2 & 3 were duly served and received by the party personally, however, it is observed that since the Year 2016, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of them. The matter was listed yesterday too, but no-one on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 appeared even in two rounds. Today also, no-one has put appearance on their behalf.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State.

6. Heard learned counsel for the