A negative final report does not bar further investigation and prosecution in cases of medical negligence requires substantial expert evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR No. 25/2007 registered at Police Station Sodala, District Jaipur for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code; order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 16, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’), whereby, file of the case/negative final report was returned for filing of challan; cognizance order dated 20.10.2008, order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the trial court whereby charges for commission of offences under -A and 420 IPC were framed against the petitioner and order dated 28.06.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. It is stated that FIR No. 25/2007 was lodged by Respondent No. 2-complainant, Dinesh Mehta alleging therein that his daughter-in-law, Smt. Sonal Mehta, who had conceived, was undergoing treatment under supervision of the petitioner and continued to take her guidance during her first pregnancy. On 17.01.2007, when the labour pains were experienced by his daughter-in-law, she was got admitted by the complainant in Sevayatan Hospital, Jaipur and was subjected to necessary investigations. After examining the reports of the investigations, it was assured by the petitioner that it would be a normal delivery of the child. Next day, at around 10.00 A.M., the petitioner left for Ajmer leaving complainant’s daughter-in-law at the mercy of unskilled employees and at around 11.30 A.M., on 18.01.20074, the child died on account of strucking cord around his neck. It was submitted that had the delivery been conducted by the skilled person/medical expert, the child could have been saved and he died only on account of grave negligence of the petitioner and employees of the hospital.

3. It was further submitted that after lodging FIR, investigation was conducted by the police authorities and as no cognizable offence was found to be proved against the petitioner, hence, negative final report was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Sodala, District Jaipur on 14.12.2007.

4. After filing of negative final report, the complainant continued to seek time to file protest petition. However, the same was never filed by the complainant. In the meanwhile, one application was filed by the investigating officer mentioning therein that although negative final report was filed after investigation, yet in the meanwhile, file of the Circle Office was called by CID(CB), Rajasthan, which conducted further investigation and took a decision to file charge sheet in the matter. Hence, permission was sought to return the file/case diary for filing charge sheet in the matter in accordance with the directions of CID(CB). On such application dated 10.10.2008, the trial court passed order dated 16.10.2008, which reveals that the application for return of case diary on account of investigation conducted by CID(CB), which was not opposed by the complainant, was allowed and the case diary was returned by the trial court with liberty to file charge sheet. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed and cognizance for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304 -A and 420 IPC was taken and process was issued against the petitioner by the trial court vide its order dated 20.10.2008.

5. Th