JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Pinky Anand, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. Ms. Pinky Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had concluded her argument yesterday and the matter adjourned to be put up today for argument of Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

3. Today Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has completed his argument and the same has been replied by Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 22.07.2021 by which cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 420, 304, 386, 354(C), 120B/34 I.P.C in connection with R.I.T. P.S. Case No.71/2021, corresponding to G.R.Case No.606/2021, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Seraikella.

5. On the written report dated 21.05.2021 of Jyotsna Jha, who is informant, the F.I.R was registered alleging therein that she admitted her father in the 111 Save Life Hospital on 26.4.2021. At the time of admission some amount was paid by her but her father was not properly treated. Even on 29.04.2021 condition of her father deteriorated. He was put on ventilator. The reason was also not disclosed to her. On 01.05.2021 she further alleged that her father felt well but again the mode of the ventilator was changed. On her request again the mode was changed, at about 10.35 P.M. her brother had disclosed that oxygen level of her father came down to level 30. She has further been informed that ventilator was removed by the ward boy and oxygen level of her father reduced to level 8 and on the same day her father died. It has been informed to the informant or her family members with 95% lungs was damaged. She further alleged that no proper treatment was provided to her father though on several dates she deposited other amounts i.e. Rs.35,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. It has been stated that the accused persons named in the first information report took money from her i.e. on pressure. Accordingly she prayed to lodge the case.

6. Ms. Pinky Anand, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the case is arising out of a medical treatment provided to the father of the informant and in absence of any preliminary enquiry the F.I.R has been registered which is against the mandate of law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. She submitted that father of the informant was admitted on 26.04.2021 and he left for his heavenly abode on 01.05.2021 and this fact has been disclosed in the F.I.R. She further submitted that this petitioner who is a practicing doctor is being harassed by the administration as he has raised certain voice against the functioning of the Government Health Department in the State of Jharkhand. She submitted that this petitioner has been implicated in four cases. She submitted that even after institution of two cases i.e. R.I.T. P.S.Case No.68/2021 and the present case i.e. R.I.T. P.S.Case 17/2021 and R.I.T. P.S.Case No.129/2021 have been instituted against this petitioner. She submitted that all these happened only when the petitioner has raised voice against the medical department of Government of Jharkhand. She further submitted that the case in hand, the death occurred due to cardiac arrest and infection in the lungs and certificate to that has been issued by the hospital, the cremation was also done on 01.05.2021 without any protest. Since it was the natural death, when there were no protest the question of the post mortem did not arise and the cremation was allowed to be done by the O.P.no.2. She submitted that father of the petitioner has also be