1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.02.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Sakchi P.S. Case No. 11 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 88 of 2006, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and one Dr. Anjali Kumari. Further prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the attending doctor of M.G.M. Medical College and Hospital, Jamshedpur on 14.01.2006 wherein the son (the deceased) of the informant was brought for treatment. However on examination of the son of the informant, it was found that he was brought dead. The informant (opposite party no. 2) thereafter lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner and one Dr. Anjali Kumari without any factual substance. It is further submitted that even if the allegation made by the opposite party no.2 is taken to be true on the face of it, it does not constitute any ingredient under Section 304-A of I.P.C. It is also submitted that continuance of the criminal case would be an abuse of the process of court and therefore, the order of cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 11 of 2006 may be quashed.

3. Learned A.P.P. though opposes the petitioner’s prayer, yet he submits that paragraph-5 of the case diary contains the statement of the informant (opposite party no.2) which discloses that his son was in fact brought dead to the said hospital. The said fact has also been corroborated by the statements of the independent witnesses recorded in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the case diary.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Before coming to the merit of the case of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to go through the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1, with regard to prosecution of medical professionals in the cases of medical negligence. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted as under:

“Guidelines — Re: prosecuting medical professionals 50. As we have noticed hereinabove that the cases of doctors (surgeons and physicians) being subjected to criminal prosecution are on an increase. Sometimes such prosecutions are filed by private complainants and sometimes by the police on an FIR being lodged and cognizance taken. The investigating officer and the private complainant cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to a rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A IPC. The criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment. He has to seek bail to escape arrest, which may or may not be granted to him. At the end he may be exonerated by acquittal or discharge but the loss which he has suffered to his reputation cannot be compensated by any standards.

51. We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasise the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefer recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurising the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against.

52. Statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India