JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J. 

1. By way of filing the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. 164 of 2015, titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. Dhawan Nursing Home, Bhikhiwind and others as well as the order dated 23.03.2018, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti in the aforementioned complaint, thereby summoning the present petitioners to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the respondent/complainant filed the aforementioned complaint on the allegations that his wife Sandeep Kaur was pregnant. In the night of 01.01.2015, she started having labour pains. She was taken to Dhawan Nursing Home. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had reached at the hospital on being called by the nurses. Wife of the complainant was taken to operation theatre. She was informed that she would have normal delivery and was asked to deposit the fee. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 had subsequently informed the complainant that a surgery was to be performed for delivery. Petitioner No.4, who was a practicing doctor in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar had been called and had performed surgery. The wife of the complainant had given birth to twin daughters. The complainant was not allowed to meet his wife thereafter and was informed that she was bleeding profusely and that her uterus was to be removed as her condition was serious. The complainant was made to sign some papers. The condition of his wife had worsened. She was taken to some other hospital and was operated again. The doctors of that hospital informed that her surgery had not properly performed by the petitioners and her uterus had not been taken out, due to which, infections had spread in her body. She died during the course of her treatment on 05.01.2015. By holding the petitioners responsible for the death of his wife, the complainant prayed for taking penal action against them.

3. After presentation of the complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, preliminary evidence was recorded. The complainant examined himself as CW-2 and produced two more witnesses i.e. CW-1 Gursewak Singh and CW-3 Dr. Rana Ranjit Singh, besides placing reliance upon certain documentary evidence. Vide order dated 23.03.2018, the learned Magistrate observed that a prima facie case was made out to issue process against the petitioners and proceeded against them for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that the testimony of CW-3 Dr. Rana Ranjit Singh, who was a Professor of Surgery at Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, indicated that at the time of admission in that hospital, the wife of the complainant was conscious and cooperative with stable vitals. She was suffering from postpartum hemorrhage. Her uterus was in atony and was removed to save her life. Her condition had worsened due to disseminated intravascular coagulation. There was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the petitioners, who had treated the victim. The medical opinion produced on record does not show that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate also ignored the fact that as per the directions issued by this Court in a petition filed by the complainant, a team of doctors was constituted by the Civil Surgeon concerned and a report (Annexure P-5) was given, as per which, there was no lapse or negligence on the part of either of the petitioners.

5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complai