IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a preliminary inquiry into allegations of medical negligence, the requirement for prima facie evidence before entertaining a private complaint, and the potential abuse of process of law in subjecting a medical professional to trial without proper scrutiny.

JUDGMENT :

The facts of Cr.M.P. No.1674 of 2012 is different and in that view of the matter, let Cr.M.P. No. 1674 of 2012 be detached from Cr.M.P. No.1387 of 2012.

2. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bermo P.S. Case No.69 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No.613 of 2011 and also for quashing the cognizance order dated 29.05.2012, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.

4. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 08.05.2011, the wife of the informant was admitted in the hospital of this petitioner. After seeing the patient, the petitioner has advised for operation immediately, but due to negligent act of the petitioner during course of operation the wife of the informant succumbed to her injuries and the baby was referred to Bokaro General Hospital where he was also declared dead on 09.05.2011 and the present case has been lodged.

5. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the I.O. of the case has investigated the matter and thereafter charge-sheet has been submitted on 30.04.2012 under Section 304 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner, who happened to be a doctor and it has been alleged that she has operated the deceased for delivery of a baby child. He further submits that the learned court has taken cognizance. He also submits that the allegation made that the death has occurred due to medical negligence, is not correct. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in a false and fabricated case in a preplanned manner by the informant after a delay of about 37 days of the alleged incident. He also submits that the wife of the informant was pregnant and she was brutally assaulted by her husband due to which the victim had sustained grievous injury and for that the brother of the deceased has registered an FIR being Jaridih P.S. Case No.61 of 2011 and final form has been submitted in that case. He further submits that the petitioner is a registered doctor and she was practicing there and at the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital, the situation of the deceased was not healthy and she was having the injury and that has been accepted by the informant and he has also written to that effect in the hospital. He further submits that in that circumstance, the petitioner bonafidely admitted her and tried to save the life and in spite of her best efforts, she has not been able to save the life of the deceased and her child. He also submits that there is no medical opinion of independent doctors and in that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding is required to be quashed in view of the judgment passed in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab; [(2005) 6 SCC 1].

6. On the other hand, Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that it is not only a case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code whereas, the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The postmortem report is on the record, which suggests that the negligence is there and in the form of postmortem report, medical opinion is there and in that view of the matter, after cognizance at this stage, this Court may not interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further submits that in the uterus there is no rupture, which has come in the postmortem report and it is fit case to dismiss the case at this stage. He also submits that in the case filed by the brother of the deceased, final form has been submitted in favour of opposite party no.2. He further submits that at this stage also, this case can be referred to the Medical Board.

7. Mr. Prakash, learned counsel for the State submits that as per the postmortem re