IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 660 of 2025

1. Dr. Shipra Sarkar, aged about 48 years, w/o Dr. Shubhajit Sarkar,

r/o Bungalow No.13, River View Enclave, Telco Colony,

Jamshedpur, P.O.-Telco, P.S.-Telco, Dist.-East Singhbhum

2. Dr. Somenath Ghosh, s/o late Amal Kumar Ghosh, aged about 47

years, r/o D-2-6, HUDCO, P.O.-TELCO, P.S.-TELCO, Jamshedpur,

Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

3. Dr. Anandita, @ Anandita Roy, aged about 39 years, w/o Sugata

Pal, r/o B22, Kharkai Road, Nildih, P.O.-Telco, P.S.-Telco,

Jamshedpur, PIN-831003, Dist.-East Singhbhum

4. Dr. Priyanka @ Kumari Priyanka, aged about 43 years, w/o Santosh

Kumar, r/o 5313, Vijaya Gardens, Baridih, Jamshedpur, P.O.-

Birsanagar, P.S.-Birsanagar, Dist.-East Singhbum

.... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary of Home, Department

of Home, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

2. Rajnish Kumar, aged about 48 years, s/o Shri Indradev Rai, r/o

House No.75, Radhika Nagar, Near Radha Krishna Mandir,

P.O.+P.S.-Telco, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum-831004 .

…. Opp. Parties

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Navaniti Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate

(Through Video Conferencing)

: Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate

: Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 312 of 2024 including the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 338, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the trial is yet to begin.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners nos.1 and 2 are the doctors of Tata Motors Hospital in which hospital the complainant was entitled for free medical treatment. The complainant took his wife namely Babita Rai and got her admitted in the said hospital. The petitioner no.2 on 08.10.2023 checked up Babita Rai. The surgical procedure was fixed to 09.10.2023. Though the complainant was called to remain present at 07:00 am on 09.10.2023 but till 10:00 am the petitioner no.2 did not turn up in the said hospital. The petitioner no.1 asked the complainant about the medical book. The complainant went to his house and searched for the medical book but when he came back, the complainant came to know that medical book has been traced out and the surgical procedure has started. The surgical procedure was conducted by the petitioner no.1 in presence of the petitioner nos.3 and 4 and in the absence of petitioner no.2. The surgical procedure remained unsuccessful and the patient was brought out from operation theater at 03:30 pm. At 08:00 pm, the patient complained of bloating in her abdomen and when informed, the doctor told that the same is normal. On 10.10.2023 the patient was given khichri and, in the evening, there was vomiting but no doctor was available in the ward. On 11.10.2023 the patient complained of severe stomach ache, injection was administered to her and she slept. In the evening of 11.10.2023, the patient again complained of stomach ache and she was restless. The complainant intimated the same to the petitioner no.1 but the petitioner no.1 told that the same is normal. On 12.10.2023 a call was received by the complainant for another surgical procedure of the patient and the petitioner no.1 informed the complainant that during the first surgery there was a hole in the intestine hence, the second surgical procedure is being done