The court emphasized that an absence of prima facie evidence of medical negligence warrants the quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent unjust harassment.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashment of the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 215 of 2022 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C. (P) Kujang corresponding to Paradeep P.S. Case No. 69 of 2022 on the grounds inter alia that the F.I.R. and the evidence collected during investigation do not prima facie disclose commission of any of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 167 and 120-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

2. A written complaint was filed by the informant alleging therein that the misconduct of the petitioners as well as the mischief committed by them while his daughter was under their medical treatment. The circumstances leading to the lodging of the report with the local police stand described with the allegations that the petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased daughter, who was working as a contractual staff nurse in the Paradeep Port Trust Hospital, Paradeep. Later to the F.I.R (Annexure-5) lodged by the father of the deceased, Paradeep P.S. Case No. 69 of 2022 was registered under Sections 323, 294 and 302 I.P.C. However, at the end of investigation, chargesheet under the alleged offences was filed, consequently upon which, the order of cognizance dated 11^th July, 2022 was passed by the learned Court below. With the contention that neither the F.I.R. nor the chargesheet reveal or disclose commission of any cognizable offence, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.P Mukherji, Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State.

4. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 was the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital, whereas, petitioner No.2 was engaged as a doctor at the relevant point of time and in so far as the allegations are concerned, it is utterly falsehood since the deceased, a staff of the hospital, who had been issued with a show cause notice for dereliction in duty and according to the F.I.R, it had put her under severe mental trauma and ultimately she died on 13^th March, 2022 due to cerebral hemorrhage. Mr. Mukherji would submit that on the request of the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, a Board was constituted and inquiry was conducted which submitted a report with an opinion about no medical negligence in the treatment of the victim to have been found. While contending so, Mr. Mukherji refers to a copy of the report submitted by the Medical Board as at Annexure-1. It is also claimed that an independent inquiry was also held at the hospital level. It was conducted by the Chief Medical Officer of Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata, which also found no negligence in the medical treatment of the deceased. However, it is submitted that notwithstanding the inquiry report under Annexure-1, the petitioners have been chargesheeted not on account of any medical negligence but for manipulation/alteration of records maintained during the treatment of the deceased moreover when there was no such mischief committed and the alterations whatever was admitted by petitioner No.2 with proper explanation offered by her. It is contended by Mr. Mukherji that apart from the above, the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C are not made out against the petitioners even by accepting Annexure-4 and all other material evidence submitted along with chargesheet. It is argued that