Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Heard Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. None present for the complainant/opposite party no.2.

3. The revision has been filed against the order dated 2.4.2011 passed by A.C.J.M., Meerut in complaint case no.703 of 2011 (Seema vs. Chhaya Rastogi and another) under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 269 I.P.C. P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, issuing process against the revisionist and another for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 269 I.P.C. and rejecting the part of complaint for the offences under Sections 500 and 270 I.P.C.

4. The brief facts relating to the case are that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against the revisionist and one Dr. Rekha Rana with averments that

"(i) Dr. Rekha Rana is an agent of revisionist;

(ii) the sister-in-law (nanand) of the complainant Sonia was operated by the revisionist on 6.11.2010, and when she was again admitted under the complaint of pain, she was again operated;

(iii) during operation by the revisionist some foreign material was left in the abdomen of Sonia on account of which pain subsisted in her abdomen, and on 20.11.2010 when the revisionist was again approached, she abused the patient and ousted her from the Hiralal Nursing Home;

(iv) subsequently, the operation of Sonia was got conducted in Modi Nagar where upon the operation, the piece of foreign material taken from her abdomen was shown by the doctor, apart from showing the proceedings of operation on the screen;

(v) when a notice was sent by the complainant to the revisionist on 5.1.2011 she threatened her on telephone."

5. On above complaint the statements of complainant and her witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate finding prima facie evidence of the offences issued impugned summoning order, feeling aggrieved with which accused has preferred this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned order is wrong on facts and law; that it is wrong to say that there was any carelessness or negligence on the part of revisionist in conducting the surgery of Sonia the sister-in-law of the complainant; that Dr. Rekha Rana is not agent of revisionist and has no concern with her; that it is absolutely wrong to say that any foreign material (piece) was left inside the abdomen of the patient at the time of operation by the revisionist or due to her alleged negligence the patient suffered pain to any extent; that the revisionist conducted the surgery of Sonia with all reasonable care and caution and performed her duty with all sincerety; that aftre surgery by revisionist Sonia was alright; that it is wrong to say that due to alleged negligence of revisionist, some piece of foreign material left inside her abdomen and under complaint of pain, the revisionist conducted 2nd surgery of Sonia or she was again operated at Modi Nagar for the 3rd time; that there is no medical report or any other medical evidence on record and without there being any expert evidence regarding the alleged negligence of revisionist, there may be no sufficient prima facie evidence of offences against the revisionist;that there is no injury report on record and no whisper of marpeet; that the allegation of threats over mobile phone are false and concocted; that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another, (2005) 6SCC page 1, Martin F. D'souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 and Marghesh K. Parik vs. Dr. M.H.Mehta, (2011) 1 SCC 31 no offence under Section 269 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist; that the revisionist never abused complaint or Sonia and never committed marpeet with any of them and never threatened or intimidated them for life, on mobile or otherwise; that the entire story mentioned in complaint is false, vague and concocted; that the revisionist is a qualified doctor and performs her duty sincerely; that