The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of expert opinions and the requirement for comprehensive expert reports in medical cases, as well as the higher level of negligence necessary for criminal medical negligence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nagmani Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceedings pertaining to Protest-cum-Complaint Petition CC No. 742 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.07.2018 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 307 and 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Giridih.

3. The O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint case alleging therein that she was suffering from pain in abdomen and upon instruction of the doctor Ultrasound was done on 20.03.2010 at Lalpur Ultrasound Centre, Ranchi wherein both kidneys were normal. It is alleged that after two months again pain started wherein she met the petitioner and was advised operation which was done. However, pain continued and the complainant was financially exploited from 01.06.2010 to 09.05.2011 on account of treatment. It is further alleged that the pain became more and she started problem in urinating and on 09.10.2013 when ultrasound was done at Nav Ultrasound Krishna Nagar, Giridih it was revealed that the complainant did not have left kidney. Repeat ultrasound was occasioned on 21.03.2013 and 24.10.2013 at Ranchi and Dhanbad which testified the said fact. It is alleged that prior to operation, both kidneys were normal and after operation left kidney was missing which indicates that the petitioner has taken out the left kidney. It was alleged that no further operation was occasioned by the complainant elsewhere. It is alleged that subsequently complaint case was lodged which was sent for lodging of F.I.R. pursuant thereto Nagar P.S. Case No. 55/2015 was lodged. It is alleged that only to help the petitioner, wrong report was submitted.

4. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially complaint was filed by the O.P. No. 2 which was referred to under section 156(3) to the concerned police station for institution of F.I.R. and pursuant thereto police submitted final form in which petitioner was not sent up for trial. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 was called by the learned court by way of issuing notice pursuant thereto O.P. No. 2 filed protest-cum-complaint petition before the concerned court and produced enquiry witnesses including herself and on the basis of same learned court took cognizance under sections 307 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the operation of hysterectomy of the O.P. No. 2 was conducted in the year, 2010 by the petitioner and the complaint was filed in the year 2014 about delay of three years. He further submits that the complainant has approached the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih pursuant to that Deputy Commissioner has constituted 3-Men Expert Committee to examine the facts in which Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Kumari, M.O. SH, Giridih, Dr. Nitya Nand Mandal, MO, SH, Giridih and Dr. (Mrs.) Sarjana Sharma, LMO, SH, Giridih have been formed in committee. He further submits that in the said committee report they have opined that one Kidney was not there from the time of birth and case was found renal agenesis. He further submits that pursuant to letter dated 28.08.2014 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand 3-Men Committee was constituted by RIMS, Ranchi wherein Head of Department of Surgery, RIMS, Head of Department, Radiology and Director, Medicine Education & Health Services, Government of Jharkhand have been formed in the committee. The said committee has also opined that Kidney in question was absent since birth. He further submits that the said doctor Enquiry Witness No. 3 was called by the Committee but that the said doctor has not appeared in the said committee. He further submits that no offence under sections 307 and 420 I.P.C. so far petitioner is concerned, is made out. He relied on judgment in the case of “Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab” re