IMPORTANT POINT
Competent medical opinion is necessary in cases of medical negligence, and the court emphasized the need for care and caution in the interest of society when prosecuting doctors for offenses of criminal rashness or negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Nishant Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Shweta Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mrs. Khalida Haya Rashmi, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2.

2. At the outset, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 namely, Dr. R.N.Singh, has left for his heavenly abode and in that view of the matter this petition has become infructuous so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned. He submits that now this case is confined to the petitioner no.2 namely, Dr. A.K.Verma.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.4.2010 in connection with Doranda (Argora) P.S.Case No.05 of 2010 (corresponding to G.R. No.80 of 2010) pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

4. The F.I.R has been registered alleging therein that husband of informant namely Asgar Ali, Bariyatu, Ranchi showed his neck problem to Dr.R.N.Singh (Petitioner no.1) on 21.6.2008 who got pathological test done and after investigation said that there was growth of mass which would be removed upon operation. On 29.6.2008 she admitted her husband in Balaji Clinic and Research Centre, Argora Housing Colony, Ranchi where operation was conducted on 29.6.2008 and he was discharged on 01.7.2008 but after some days the wound and pain started aggravating upon which he was again shown to Dr.R.N.Singh who prescribed certain medicine and on not being cured again visited to the doctor who asked to go to some other doctor. Because of increasing problems they visited Kolkata where doctors questioned about the person who had conducted operation and asked the slide and block which were tested at the place of Dr.A.K.Verma (petitioner no.2) be brought and they said that after test they would say further about the complication which had been terms as mere growth of mass for which operation has been done. Doctors at Kolkata said that Dr.R.N.Singh had made wrong treatment and conducted operation whereas it was cancer and due to operation the ailment had aggravated. After this the informant took him to Tata Cancer hospital where the doctors after examining told that problem had got aggravated and whosoever had done had done it wrongly and the patient is at advance stage which could not be cured. Accordingly the FIR was registered under section 270 of 34 IPC. Hence this petition.

5. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the entire allegation is even accepted to be true that is against the petitioner no.1 who has already left for his heavenly abode and so far as the petitioner no.2 namely Dr. A.K.Verma is concerned, there is no allegation as he has only done certain tests in the capacity of pathologist and there is no allegation that the test report was not correctly provided by Dr. A.K.Verma. He further submits that in such cases the case of “Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab”, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 is required to be considered and in absence of any medical expert report the case has been registered and on this ground he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 fairly submits that the allegations are against the petitioner no.1 who has already left for his heavenly abode. She submits that this Court at this stage may not interfere in view of the fact that the cognizance has already been taken. On this ground, she submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

7. Mrs. Shweta Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that charge sheet has been submitted and the learned court has already taken cognizance.

8. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the FIR as well as the order taking cognizance. In the contents of the FIR the