KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. Dr. Manish Bansal, Senior Medical Officer, now posted at CHC Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 in the year 2014 for quashing of FIR No.77 dated 30.7.2011, registered at Police Station Guhla along with the police report dated 22.8.2012 (Annexure P1) and the consequential proceedings, including framing of charge and the impugned order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guhla and order dated 23.4.2014 (Annexure P7) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Further prayer was made for discharging the petitioner.

2. Petitioner is M.B.B.S., M.S. (General Surgery) and claims to have experience of more than 15 years. He is working as Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, Haryana. On 30.7.2011, FIR No.77 was registered against the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC on the basis of the complaint made on 29.7.2011 by Mahender Ram son of Sona Ram, resident of village Kharka, PS Guhla. In the said complaint, Mahender Ram has stated that on 28.7.2011, his daughter-in-law Paramjit Kaur wife of Surjit Ram was brought to CHC, Guhla for sterilization operation. She was quite right. However, when she returned home in Government Vehicle, after sterilization operation, she complained of acute pain. She was being brought to CHC, Guhla, but she died on the way. It was alleged that Paramjit Kaur died because of negligence of the doctor. On the basis of same, FIR was registered.

3. In this case charge under Section 304-A IPC was framed on 23.11.2011. An application for discharge was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P5). Revision against the said order was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal on 23.4.2014 (Annexure P7). The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2014 for quashing FIR.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.

5. Application for discharge was primarily moved on the ground that there is no sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 197(8) Cr.P.C., 1973 Therefore he is liable to be discharged. Learned Magistrate observed that charge under Section 304-A IPC was famed on 23.11.2011. In the postmortem report, the Board has given opinion about the death of the person. During the subsequent investigation, Board gave opinion that there is no negligence on the part of the operating surgeon. Trial Court observed that two doctors Dr.Suman Lata and Dr.Dinesh are the same doctors, who previously gave their opinion in the postmortem and it was mentioned that the Board is of the opinion that cause of death is shock and hemorrhage. It was observed that no appeal or revision against the order framing charge was filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another, 2005 AIR (SC) 3180, wherein, while dealing with the medical negligence, the Apex Court has summoned up as under:-

We sum up our conclusions as under:-

(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: ‘duty’, ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’.

(2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupati