IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a preliminary enquiry in cases of medical negligence, the need for caution in prosecuting doctors, and the seriousness of summoning the accused in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Amarjit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, including the order dated 25.03.2014, whereby the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in Protest Complaint Case No. 2324/2012, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing Doctor of Ranchi city and he is specialized in Gastroenterology. He submits that for the death of the son-in-law of opposite party no. 2, Chutia P.S. Case No. 135/2012, dated 24.06.2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 3547/2012 was registered against the petitioner and after investigation, the police has submitted final report on 25.10.2012 as untrue and, thereafter, opposite party no. 2 filed Protest Complaint Case No. 2324/2012 in which the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. He further submits that initially the son-in-law of opposite party no. 2 was treated in Jharkhand Hospital at Kantatoli, Ranchi and, thereafter, the Doctor who attending him, advised to go for higher specialized centre and, accordingly, the son-in-law of opposite party no. 2 was brought to Guru Nanak Hospital, Ranchi, where, he was admitted for treatment and for four days, the treatment was going on and, thereafter, the health was deteriorated and he left for his heavenly abode. He also submits that the Doctor has taken all care and has provided the treatment and in spite of his best efforts, the life of son-in-law of opposite party no. 2 was not saved. He further submits that the learned court has taken cognizance without looking into the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Amarjit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that proper treatment was not provided and that is why the son-in-law of opposite party no. 2 has left for his heavenly abode. The protest complaint case was filed by opposite party no. 2 and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He further submits that the case is pending since 2012 and unnecessarily, opposite party no. 2 is being harassed.

5. Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State submits that the police has investigated the matter and submitted final form and, thereafter, on protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner.

6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition as well as the order taking cognizance. It is an admitted fact that son-in-law of opposite party no. 2 was initially treated at Jharkhand Hospital, Kantatoli, Ranchi where he was advised to go to specialized centre and, thereafter, the patient was brought to Guru Nanak Hospital, Ranchi, where, he was admitted and treatment was started.

7. It is also an admitted fact that the son-in-law of opposite party no. 2 was alive for four days and the treatment was going on.

8. In the solemn affirmation before the learned court, the complainant has also disclosed that for four days, the treatment was going on and, thereafter, his son-in-law has left for heavenly abode.

9. Further, the police has investigated the matter thoroughly and thereafter filed final form. The learned court has taken cognizance on the protest petition. If such a situation was there, at least prima facie material was required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance as final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner, but that is lack